General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAndrew Yang is running for president. He's a Democrat.
I heard pf his campaign today on progressive radio. One of his proposals is a guaranteed income for everyone.
His campaign proposes a $1,000/month "Freedom Dividend" to all US citizens between the ages of 18 to 64, which is a form of Universal Basic Income, and other responses to predictions of mass unemployment from technological automation.[17][18] In a New York Times editorial featuring his 2020 Presidential campaign, he is noted as creating various new policies such as a department focused on regulating the addictive nature of media, a White House Psychologist, making tax day a National Holiday, and to stem corruption, increasing the salaries of federal regulators but limiting their private work after they leave public service.[19] He is running on the slogan "Humanity First."[20] Yang is the first American man of Asian ancestry Democrat to run for President.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)RDANGELO
(3,433 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)Because, it saves all kinds of money. You don't need welfare, or a government payment that is not above the minimum amount. It eliminates a lot of other departments etc.. There is less bureaucracy, and the great thing is the stigma of being on welfare is removed.
rampartc
(5,412 posts)than they send out to means tested recipients.
the means test also prevents many people from leaving weldare ("i can't take a better job or my children will lose medicare."
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that have "endorsed" it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)"couldn't make the numbers work" in 2016. Lots of serious priorities piled up and needing to be dealt with at once, so she thought we'd win at least one chamber of congress, get society and the economy on healthier footings than the Republican congress allowed Obama to achieve, then move forward with a universal basic income. In hindsight, she wondered if she shouldn't have promised it for her first term, so it's clearly doable -- and necessary.
Btw, if this guy can do it in 2021 after the Republicans have spent 4 years deliberately running our nation very deep into debt -- to make sure it can't happen -- and transferring vast amounts of our national wealth to the very wealthy, I might just vote for him myself. Even counting the costs of not tackling more critical needs first. I don't believe he can for a moment, though. Business is extremely different from government. His hackneyed pretense (Repubilcans practically swear at its altar) that being a businessman qualifies him in itself shows he's blowing smoke.
yuiyoshida
(41,832 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)since no one knows what "the addictive nature of media" means. Or how it works with freedom of the press.
And while giving 12 grand a year to the poor might be a decent idea, why give it to the billionaire just to make everything look even? Besides, there is this concept of demand-pull inflation that could just cause a rise in prices, screwing the poor even more.
And so it goes in the marketplace of ideas...
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)The theory is that is everyone received the benefit, it can't be framed as "welfare for the poor"
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)brooklynite
(94,598 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)And even if taxes are increased on some segments...
350,000,000 x $10,000 = $3.5 trillion
So, juggle the numbers to deal with present SS and other payments and taxes, eliminate minors, and other ways to reduce the total and you still have a lot of zeros.
And someone will remember that years ago Italy tried a jumpstarting scheme giving everyone an annual holiday "bonus", and all it did was send a lot of people on vacation and prices were hiked everywhere.
Anyway, "negative tax" schemes seem like a better way to go. Cheaper and more effective.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Heard him speak on C-Span awhile ago and I was very impressed.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)brush
(53,791 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)brush
(53,791 posts)about the first Asian American running for president.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)...hes not going anywhere. Especially in todays world where we need to counter a man in the White House who had no experience in government or public service before running for president.
I dont mean it as a personal slam against Mr. Yang or that he doesnt bring any interesting ideas to the table. But at this point hed be better off running for something like a seat in Congress as opposed to immediately seeking the highest office in the land without any experience.
We need someone who has had experience in elected office, period.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)brush
(53,791 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)My snark has everything to do with the fact that not only does he have no experience in either elected office or the public sector, but he has basically no name recognition whatsoever. Id venture to say that over 99% of Americans have never heard of him in their lives or have even the slightest idea of what he does.
His candidacy is basically a nonstarter on those two facts alone. And being a private businessman is no way a qualification for being President in and of itself.
Trust me, if we were talking about, say, Tammy Duckworth or Mazie Hirono I wouldnt be having this conversation.
brush
(53,791 posts)aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)Universal income is good.
Dept on addictive nature of media is weird.
Tax Day holiday is weird.
I look forward to hearing more. He sounds like a smart guy but with little political experience.
ck4829
(35,077 posts)jeffreyi
(1,943 posts)I read it. Premise: jobs are vanishing because of automation. Food service industry, white collar, etc. Wait 'till the truck drivers get hosed. It is happening regardless of what we think or believe (climate change, anybody?). Retraining workers hasn't worked all that well. Universal basic income softens the impact of millions out of work.
I found it interesting.