RT @JonathanHerzog5: It’s time for a Representative at the vanguard of this era’s civil rights fights.
Our future is decentralized and open source. #Bitcoin #Ethereum
It’s time for deep freedom, not shallow equality. For the people.
It’s time to move NY forward.
Join us! https://t.co/Gl6sHwSFrNhttps://t.co/eC6MYBq2fH
Unless you spend over 100k a year (which is less than 1 percent of the population), a UBI of 1000 a month benefits you more than a tax cut. If you pay more than 12k in taxes a year, you won't get more money net. But only 1 percent of the population pays more than 12k in taxes a year or spends (not makes) over 100k a year.
TBH - I was a extremely huge fan of Yang for a very long time. UBI was something I believed in even before listening to Yang’s interview on the Breakfast Club & Joe Rogan. And I’ve analyzed how UBI have worked in the USA (Alaska with oil revenue) and in other places such as Macau (their casino revenue).
Then he chose to endorse Biden, basically asking everyone who believed in him and his ideas to return to the status quo. Deep down, I knew he wasn’t going to win.... but at the very least he could have endorsed someone who had similar policy views than him. Policy aside, I wanted to vote for a man with conviction.
Why the hell would I trust the endorsement of someone who I believe lost all credibility?
Unfortunately “Pragmatism” for the past 50 years got us to this point, in our country, and globally.
- 2008 - It’s pragmatic to bail out the banks using tax payer money after they hedged their bets on mortgage backed securities with variable rates. While regular people with student debt can’t get a mortgage for their first house. (Because the generation before us told us it was pragmatic to go to college)
- 2005 - It’s pragmatic to let automation dictate how the world runs their economies, while millions of skilled workers lose their jobs with no backup plan.
- 2002 - It’s pragmatic to decrease the Bank Reserve percentage to increase lending in the USA after 9/11 - with no regulations against predatory lending.
- 1993 - It was pragmatic to compete with globalization, without fully understanding the consequences to the USA manufacturing sector.
- 1988 - It was pragmatic to outsource all manufacturing overseas, including the initial opening of Mainland China market, diminishing the quality of products overall and cheap labor. [Thus creating a culture of waste, which factors into the climate crisis] Which Mainland China now uses as leverage against most of the planet.
Pragmatism is an excuse. Yang’s initial platform was “we need substantive change now” before it’s too late. I believed in him.
Now I spend my days praying for a strategic policy from ANYONE for how we’re gonna rebound from being quarantined for 3 months, economy down the drain, and feelings of hate and anger all over the country.
I understand but what else would you want yang to do instead? I believe in him still, I actually received money from his new nonprofit Humanity Forward. Unlike many of the other grants and organizations I applied for pandemic assistance from, Yang was one of the few who came through.
It's a value added tax on consumer goods, and budget cuts on programs that become irrelevant with a UBI like food stamps. Prices of consumer goods are slightly higher but unless you spend over 100k a year (which is less than 1 percent of the population), you benefit from it. It greatly benefits the middle class by giving them about 10k extra per year after you factor in taxes.
I got nothing against basic income per say, but the thing is that we’d be giving up a powerful congressmen with clout for a new guy that offers nothing in addition to Nadler except for UBI, which stands absolutely no chance at passing.
I got nothing against your guy, I just think it’s a bad trade. If UBI was serious legislation, I’m sure Nadler would vote for it. It’s just never going to happen.
UBI could definitely happen as soon as this year if people supported it and most likely will have to happen in the next 10 years due to increasing automation and job loss. People received a taste of UBI with the stimulus checks last month, and there was nothing unrealistic about it. The government definitely has the money to support it if enough people just asked for it. UBI is simple but it solves a ton of problems—it lowers crime, creates jobs, helps fuel small businesses, lowers homelessness, makes housing more affordable, fixes hunger etc. Nadlers got more experience, but UBI would be incredible for so many people—I'd take that trade any day.
Also your argument for nadler is "he's a powerful congressman with klout"--that's like saying we have to keep trump in office he's powerful. An endorsement of the status quo and keeping the powerful in power, not an endorsement of what's right for people.
I like the intention, but somehow I'm sort of not a huge fan. Whenever he goes on TV, he's headlined as "Andrew Yang staffer", and then he does a relatively poor job copy/pasting Yang's speech, but without the swag. It makes Yang's platform look worse.
i don't know, it's not really a practice and polish thing. it's just he started with no originality and copied the speech almost word for word. there's not much tailoring to the district he's running for. what is he going to do about the fourth industrial revolution in NY-10?
there's foundation, and there's copying his stump speech. but anyways, best of luck to him. just hope he doesn't dilute yang's platform on national media again.
i think yang didn't part ways with him well. i think he was let go, and was responsible for scheduling yang for the iowa event that yang had to skip and apologize for. then when asked about herzog, they said no comment.