Your username looked familiar-- are you the same doug3465 from Reddit? I'm /u/doug. Didn't we have a mini-rivalry many years ago, or was that another doug?
Your username looked familiar-- are you the same doug3465 from Reddit? I'm /u/doug. Didn't we have a mini-rivalry many years ago, or was that another doug?
It's kinda odd, I think, that with Yang and Gabbard on, people were outraged. Wonder why the response is different with this one? Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Warren et al. supporters...
It's kinda odd, I think, that with Yang and Gabbard on, people were outraged. Wonder why the response is different with this one? Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Warren et al. supporters end up going after him for this.
I'd say a lot of people, yeah; basically every mention of Yang for a decent while had at least a handful of people calling him anything in the book. It even happened on Tildes!...
I'd say a lot of people, yeah; basically every mention of Yang for a decent while had at least a handful of people calling him anything in the book.
With Yang (don't really know about Gabbard) people were already connecting him to the alt-right so him appearing on the JRE (controversial for having alt-right guests) was just another damning...
With Yang (don't really know about Gabbard) people were already connecting him to the alt-right so him appearing on the JRE (controversial for having alt-right guests) was just another damning piece of evidence for him courting or being too closely associated with the alt-right. Nobody really says that about Sanders though (closest would the people calling him and his supporters misogynists, but with the front-runner being another old white guy that narrative isn't around as much now) so him going on the JRE can be looked at in a more positive light. You could say that's hypocritical or unfair to Yang but probably with Sanders being on JRE you won't see people condemning Yang for the same. Anyway, if you want to criticize him for the interviews he's taken the low-hanging fruit would be Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson. (Whether or not he should be criticized for those interviews though is a whole other topic.)
Actually, I think that's one of the selling points. Yang continually pitches his Freedom Dividend as 'capitalism that doesn't start at zero', neatly setting him up to shoot down any republican...
Actually, I think that's one of the selling points.
Yang continually pitches his Freedom Dividend as 'capitalism that doesn't start at zero', neatly setting him up to shoot down any republican attacks that call him socialist in the future. Calling him a socialist is just inviting him to hit a home run. If you read his policies, he's being very careful to pitch all of it as 'human centered capitalism', and that's where his 'humanity first' slogan comes in.
So, it's rather easy for uninformed people who don't actually understand what socialism is (workers owning the means of production) to believe that somehow, the rest of the democratic field is socialist, and Yang is the only capitalist up there sticking up for the good old American way of life. In reality, nothing the democrats are proposing is socialism, but since most people aren't aware of that, Yang's positioning himself to benefit from those arguments in a way that the rest of the field hasn't. It's extremely devious politicking.
That's why some of the alt-right glom onto Yang. This strategy works. When you show them his gun control plan, one of the strictest on the field, they like his capitalism pitch so much that they respond with, 'he'll never be able to pass that, so I'm fine with it' rather than deal with the dissonance.
The optimist in me says he's treating the darker corners as a useful idiot to help boost his campaign (the DNC and debate format seemed to be putting him on the back burner). The pessimist in me...
The optimist in me says he's treating the darker corners as a useful idiot to help boost his campaign (the DNC and debate format seemed to be putting him on the back burner). The pessimist in me fears it's more nefarious.
Conversely, I've heard that UBI is something Repubilcans support on account they can then gut the other welfare programs and instead focus on one pot-- but the citizenship-requirement point that article makes isn't something I'd considered. Phooey! Why can't they just want things for niceness sake!
Gutting the other welfare programs comes from Milton Friedman, and in conservative economic circles, he's Capitalism Jesus even to this day. You might remember his 'Free to Choose' series on...
Gutting the other welfare programs comes from Milton Friedman, and in conservative economic circles, he's Capitalism Jesus even to this day. You might remember his 'Free to Choose' series on capitalism, which is basically Cosmos for economists. He made the argument that the bureaucracy required for welfare, and the misguided means testing, and the reduction of benefits as income increased, all combined to create an effective poverty trap of self-perpetuating programs and circumstances.
Once someone was stuck in this cycle, it was easier to adjust one's lifestyle and remain in it than to make attempts to get a job or improve one's circumstances. This trap also costs the government a great deal more to administer because of the means testing, so a minimum income distributed without such testing saves by cutting out all overhead costs. Friedman was endorsing UBI/NIT as a mechanism to provide better welfare more fairly without wasteful spending and administration costs. He wanted it to replace all other welfare programs because it's superior in implementation to any of them.
So, when you see people talking about UBI as a means to eliminate welfare programs, that's the original form of the idea where it started. It wasn't meant to be a sneaky trick to destroy welfare programs. It was meant to be the ultimate form of a welfare program that beat the bottom line implementation cost of the entire field.
I can certainly believe there are some conservatives out there who think they can use this UBI as a trojan horse to end all other welfare programs. I've seen opinions saying it'll be easy to turn on UBI for a couple of years, end the other programs, and then get rid of UBI and thus all welfare. I think what they are missing is that if there's one thing in America guaranteed to become universally popular, it's giving everyone cash every month with no fuss and no stigma. I suspect after a couple years, any talk of getting rid of the UBI will be political suicide in both parties.
As for giving UBI and other welfare to non-citizens, that's going to be pricklier. It's a smart thing to do - investing in your own immigrants - but since the returns are delayed decades, it'll remain a tough sell.
i mean, when has something being "political suicide" ever stopped initiatives from being passed, though? obamacare was a guaranteed clusterfuck for the democrats but they passed it anyways (and...
I think what they are missing is that if there's one thing in America guaranteed to become universally popular, it's giving everyone cash every month with no fuss and no stigma. I suspect after a couple years, any talk of getting rid of the UBI will be political suicide in both parties.
i mean, when has something being "political suicide" ever stopped initiatives from being passed, though? obamacare was a guaranteed clusterfuck for the democrats but they passed it anyways (and subsequently got annihilated in the following six years). republicans in kind have since tried to repeal obamacare or otherwise gut it basically every chance they've gotten and passed horrendously lopsided tax cuts, which were both spectacularly unpopular initiatives where it counts and were the main drivers behind the wave election last year. hell, even now, the republican party is stonewalling on background checks for gun purchases, which is something which is almost unanimously popular with the electorate (polling consistently finds it in the high 80s and low 90s support). i think you're somewhat overestimating how corrective the public opinion is when it comes to what parties actually do in power, because they've certainly not shied away from political suicide initiatives previously.
This is true, policies bought and paid for by corporations have certainly left a wide trail of bodies on both sides of the aisle. Good thing that several of the democrats running have fixes for...
This is true, policies bought and paid for by corporations have certainly left a wide trail of bodies on both sides of the aisle. Good thing that several of the democrats running have fixes for that in their platforms, we're going to need it.
Because that is the world we live in. Any set of rules, any regulation put in place, must be rigorously defended and understood. If we rush into a far-reaching program without thinking it through,...
Because that is the world we live in. Any set of rules, any regulation put in place, must be rigorously defended and understood. If we rush into a far-reaching program without thinking it through, it will end up benefiting the people who need it least.
the alt-right and broader far right in this country brags about tulsi gabbard--who is a multiethnic hindu nationalist who grew up in a multi-religious household, who represents half of the...
the alt-right and broader far right in this country brags about tulsi gabbard--who is a multiethnic hindu nationalist who grew up in a multi-religious household, who represents half of the least-white part of america, and who currently and ostensibly positions herself as a progressive/berniecrat type despite her less-than-great history--being /theirgirl/ and getting her into the debates, so i mean, expecting some sort of big-brain smartness to who they rally behind is already giving them credit they don't deserve. they're really not as coherent as you'd think they'd be based on what they believe.
JRE is the best medium that currently exists to learn substantively about a candidate and Bernie kills this. I hope more candidates follow.
Joe's already had Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. Political pokemon, let's collect them all. Liz, you're up!
Your username looked familiar-- are you the same doug3465 from Reddit? I'm /u/doug. Didn't we have a mini-rivalry many years ago, or was that another doug?
Yes and I'm still mad about it! Hi there.
It's kinda odd, I think, that with Yang and Gabbard on, people were outraged. Wonder why the response is different with this one? Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Warren et al. supporters end up going after him for this.
I'd say a lot of people, yeah; basically every mention of Yang for a decent while had at least a handful of people calling him anything in the book.
It even happened on Tildes!
https://tildes.net/~news/f09/andrew_yang_says_microphone_was_not_on_at_times_during_democratic_debate
Please don't keep trying to start the same argument about Yang repeatedly.
With Yang (don't really know about Gabbard) people were already connecting him to the alt-right so him appearing on the JRE (controversial for having alt-right guests) was just another damning piece of evidence for him courting or being too closely associated with the alt-right. Nobody really says that about Sanders though (closest would the people calling him and his supporters misogynists, but with the front-runner being another old white guy that narrative isn't around as much now) so him going on the JRE can be looked at in a more positive light. You could say that's hypocritical or unfair to Yang but probably with Sanders being on JRE you won't see people condemning Yang for the same. Anyway, if you want to criticize him for the interviews he's taken the low-hanging fruit would be Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson. (Whether or not he should be criticized for those interviews though is a whole other topic.)
Wait, they are? I would've thought the 'right' would consider him a dirty socialist considering his main talking point is UBI.
Actually, I think that's one of the selling points.
Yang continually pitches his Freedom Dividend as 'capitalism that doesn't start at zero', neatly setting him up to shoot down any republican attacks that call him socialist in the future. Calling him a socialist is just inviting him to hit a home run. If you read his policies, he's being very careful to pitch all of it as 'human centered capitalism', and that's where his 'humanity first' slogan comes in.
So, it's rather easy for uninformed people who don't actually understand what socialism is (workers owning the means of production) to believe that somehow, the rest of the democratic field is socialist, and Yang is the only capitalist up there sticking up for the good old American way of life. In reality, nothing the democrats are proposing is socialism, but since most people aren't aware of that, Yang's positioning himself to benefit from those arguments in a way that the rest of the field hasn't. It's extremely devious politicking.
That's why some of the alt-right glom onto Yang. This strategy works. When you show them his gun control plan, one of the strictest on the field, they like his capitalism pitch so much that they respond with, 'he'll never be able to pass that, so I'm fine with it' rather than deal with the dissonance.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/andrew-yang-4chan-alt-right/
The optimist in me says he's treating the darker corners as a useful idiot to help boost his campaign (the DNC and debate format seemed to be putting him on the back burner). The pessimist in me fears it's more nefarious.
Conversely, I've heard that UBI is something Repubilcans support on account they can then gut the other welfare programs and instead focus on one pot-- but the citizenship-requirement point that article makes isn't something I'd considered. Phooey! Why can't they just want things for niceness sake!
Gutting the other welfare programs comes from Milton Friedman, and in conservative economic circles, he's Capitalism Jesus even to this day. You might remember his 'Free to Choose' series on capitalism, which is basically Cosmos for economists. He made the argument that the bureaucracy required for welfare, and the misguided means testing, and the reduction of benefits as income increased, all combined to create an effective poverty trap of self-perpetuating programs and circumstances.
Once someone was stuck in this cycle, it was easier to adjust one's lifestyle and remain in it than to make attempts to get a job or improve one's circumstances. This trap also costs the government a great deal more to administer because of the means testing, so a minimum income distributed without such testing saves by cutting out all overhead costs. Friedman was endorsing UBI/NIT as a mechanism to provide better welfare more fairly without wasteful spending and administration costs. He wanted it to replace all other welfare programs because it's superior in implementation to any of them.
So, when you see people talking about UBI as a means to eliminate welfare programs, that's the original form of the idea where it started. It wasn't meant to be a sneaky trick to destroy welfare programs. It was meant to be the ultimate form of a welfare program that beat the bottom line implementation cost of the entire field.
I can certainly believe there are some conservatives out there who think they can use this UBI as a trojan horse to end all other welfare programs. I've seen opinions saying it'll be easy to turn on UBI for a couple of years, end the other programs, and then get rid of UBI and thus all welfare. I think what they are missing is that if there's one thing in America guaranteed to become universally popular, it's giving everyone cash every month with no fuss and no stigma. I suspect after a couple years, any talk of getting rid of the UBI will be political suicide in both parties.
As for giving UBI and other welfare to non-citizens, that's going to be pricklier. It's a smart thing to do - investing in your own immigrants - but since the returns are delayed decades, it'll remain a tough sell.
i mean, when has something being "political suicide" ever stopped initiatives from being passed, though? obamacare was a guaranteed clusterfuck for the democrats but they passed it anyways (and subsequently got annihilated in the following six years). republicans in kind have since tried to repeal obamacare or otherwise gut it basically every chance they've gotten and passed horrendously lopsided tax cuts, which were both spectacularly unpopular initiatives where it counts and were the main drivers behind the wave election last year. hell, even now, the republican party is stonewalling on background checks for gun purchases, which is something which is almost unanimously popular with the electorate (polling consistently finds it in the high 80s and low 90s support). i think you're somewhat overestimating how corrective the public opinion is when it comes to what parties actually do in power, because they've certainly not shied away from political suicide initiatives previously.
This is true, policies bought and paid for by corporations have certainly left a wide trail of bodies on both sides of the aisle. Good thing that several of the democrats running have fixes for that in their platforms, we're going to need it.
Because that is the world we live in. Any set of rules, any regulation put in place, must be rigorously defended and understood. If we rush into a far-reaching program without thinking it through, it will end up benefiting the people who need it least.
Man they're really picking an Asian man who made his name in the Bay as their leader for white nationalism?
The fuck?
the alt-right and broader far right in this country brags about tulsi gabbard--who is a multiethnic hindu nationalist who grew up in a multi-religious household, who represents half of the least-white part of america, and who currently and ostensibly positions herself as a progressive/berniecrat type despite her less-than-great history--being /theirgirl/ and getting her into the debates, so i mean, expecting some sort of big-brain smartness to who they rally behind is already giving them credit they don't deserve. they're really not as coherent as you'd think they'd be based on what they believe.