I've been reading a little bit into his "give everybody $1000" proposal and it's actually not as dumb as it sounds. He's saying that it's cheaper to just give everyone the money instead of spending it on social programs. Interesting.
Andrew Yang
- Thread starter firm_bizzle
- Start date
Goddamnit, now you are turning into one of them commie socialists, I thought you were a good guy, God fearing Mexican hating wall building making America great again like when the homosexuals were IN the closet kinda guy.
Sad*
Sort of, yes. He did a one-time helicopter money style payment to tax payers. It was the first instance of QE being used in the US.
I thought the same thing too. Here is Yang's answer to that.
The data doesn’t show this. In many of the studies where cash is given to the poor, there has been no increase in drug and alcohol use. In fact, many people use it to try and reduce their alcohol consumption or substance abuse. In Alaska, for example, people regularly put the petroleum dividend they receive from the state in accounts for their children’s education. The idea that poor people will be irresponsible with their money and squander it seems to be a biased stereotype rather than a truth.
Decision-making has been shown to improve when people have greater economic security. Giving people resources will enable them to make better decisions to improve their situation. As Dutch philosopher Rutger Bregman puts it, “Poverty is not a lack of character. It’s a lack of cash.”
If you are talking about spending on consumer products then that actually helps the economy.
Almost ... W's tax credits on the lower middle class were very popular, to the point some did receive money. Tax credits are very difficult to take away, but the biggest cost in most tax systems.
They've been growing since the late Reagan administration, until Trump's tax code took several away. That's why revenue hasn't fallen like predicted, especially not when the actual revenue is counted -- not the reduced withholdings -- although Trump continues to spend as bad as Obama, even worse in some areas.
Bush had checks sent out, it wasn't a tax credit. Anybody who paid taxes got a 600 dollar check if I recall.
I would strongly disagree with Rutger Bregman as his statement conveys a moral equivalence that is irrelevant. Very few are saying people in poverty are there because they are bad people. Poverty is a number of things, among them a lack of skills, lack of ambition, lack of opportunity, lack of health, lack of positive habits, etc. Simply giving handouts to poor people may directly alleviate the lack of opportunity, but it doesn't do anything about the rest of the factors.
I think this is a good description of the way many of us feel "None of this means that providing lower-income families with more money is necessarily a bad thing. But we should not pretend that money alone is going to change significantly the lives of these families, beyond easing a few hardships. The challenge is to find ways of providing generous support to the poor without disregarding the unpleasant facts about their behavior. Ideally, we need to nudge them toward a different set of behaviors by linking generous governmental assistance to staying in school, delaying childbearing, getting married, and working full-time."
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-behavioral-aspects-of-poverty/
@sk8knight assumes they'll stop smoking crack and start snorting blow
My father was a crack addict when I was in high school and got locked up when I was 17 while trying to buy from an undercover officer. He spent 13 years after jail clean while on probation and then relapsed. I’ve spent a good amount of money giving him fresh start after fresh start. So your joke is less than humorous.
We are already doing that. The point is to give them cash directly and save the expense of the benefits.
This whole idea falsely assumes that we'd replace this for entitlements. Or some level of reduction, which we all know is totally false.
President Yang could lobby for and possibly get his $1,000 check to people monthly, but we'd still have people on the left running ads about President Yang throwing granny over the cliff or leaving people to die in gutters if he even mentioned a reciprocal cut to entitlement or welfare spending to offset that cost.
This is why any new social entitlement spending might as well be declared to be from God at time of passage, since once passed it's impossible to cut or reduce in this country.
I'm not surprised that you typed out three paragraphs on a topic you have learned about likely exclusively from national review or some MAGA hat Facebook group and that every paragraph would be wrong.
Yangs plan allows people to opt in to the $1000/mo in return you relinquish your access to social programs. There is no double dipping.
Yea and I just said that’s a fallacy. No Democratic Congress would ever allow current social entitlements to be put in jeopardy by people opting out. It’s nonsense. And people opting out absolutely would put those programs in jeopardy since they’re essentially government Ponzi schemes
not many people could over come something like that. hang in there man. you are always welcome to have a beer at my tailgate.
Latest posts
-
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: HoopingKnight51
-
-
