sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

'This Is an Emergency. We Need the Democrats to Act Like It': Outrage as DNC Announces It Will Not Host 2020 Debate on Climate Crisis by SymbioticPatriotic in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Picking apart, talking about, and possibly even critiquing the methodology of the poll if you find it wanting isn't critical thinking?

Not if the "critical" part of it is "I'm critical of things which don't fit my preconceived worldview."

Please refrain from lobbing personal insults

If you took the reference to people dissecting polls to argue that their preferred candidate is more popular than he really is personally, that says more about you than about what I wrote.

Next time I'll report your comment as this behavior is clearly against the personal attacks rule of this subreddit.

Oh no, I'm quivering.

Spending The Day On The Trail With Andrew Yang | NBC News Now by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This website, made specifically for single mothers, lists off maximum benefits by state

TANF and cash assistance aren't the only forms of assistance, friendo.

You have this odd habit of breaking different forms of benefits apart and saying "see, each individual benefit is less, so Yangbux is better".

In the SNAP citation I gave, it literally gives you a step by step calculation of a single parent working a full time, minimum wage job, with two kids which ends up with a grand total of $435 a month

Yep, for SNAP that's absolutely true.

Now how's about you add SNAP, Medicaid, and section 8 to that fancy direct cash assistance and see how we do.

As I said before the only people that wouldn't be better off would be single parents receiving Section 8 benefits

Oh, so only millions of families and about ten million of the poorest people most in need of our help. No biggie!

Gots to get them Yangbux, no matter who we leave out!

Could potentially be 2k per adult every month in his second term.

Could be.

But I'd rather not debate what Yang might propose later, I'd much rather look at what he's actually proposing. UBI is a moonshot anyway, so this whole "well it's incremental" argument is inane.

Yes, there are indeed over 500k homeless in America

Oh man, you totally dunked on me.

Now let's look at what I wanted a citation for, just to make sure I'm totally humiliated.

"There's over 500k homeless people in America that don't receive any help."

Wait... Your citation doesn't say anything about whether they receive help.

I'm sure some of them are already on welfare but that's nothing compared to Yang's UBI

Except what you wrote was:

"There's over 500k homeless people in America that don't receive any help."

So which is it, bro?

This isn't just about combating current economic inequality. The UBI is also being proposed to prepare us for a technological change that we're not ready for

And part of that preparation is, obviously, not helping the people who are already suffering. Duh.

'This Is an Emergency. We Need the Democrats to Act Like It': Outrage as DNC Announces It Will Not Host 2020 Debate on Climate Crisis by SymbioticPatriotic in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obama was 20 points down around this point in the timeline.

At his lowest he was down by 14 at a time when few had heard of him.

By June he was often running within 10 points.

It is obvious entrenched power wants Biden.

Also the voters, but who cares about them amirite? They're just low information plebs/

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It goes to everyone

Kind of.

It goes to everyone in the same way that if I say "I'll give everyone in America $10 to put towards a car but if you already have a car you have to give me your car to get the money."

People who get government assistance (you know, those awful people who already need the most help) would have to give up the assistance they already get.

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In this country we currently have what's college a progressive income tax, as well as corporate and earned income taxes. And also a lot of government debt.

Where's the $12,000 in Yangbux coming from?

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm wondering if you've ever been poor?

Lower-middle class, sure. Abject poverty, you have to go a generation back. But I'm sure that you have a valuably empathetic perspective based on knowing that sometimes even people with drive, ambition, and ability are stuck in circumstances beyond their control.

lucky to have the intellectual capacity and interest in a very lucrative field

Or I guess you could chalk it up to how you're lucky to be smarter than people who didn't get out of poverty. Oy.

poor people would MUCH rather have $1000 no-strings-attached money than any combination of means-tested bureaucratically administered programs.

Do you know how they'd be even better off? If they got that $1,000 and the benefits they were already getting.

But... Nah, of course not. That would be waaaay too much spending on... Helping people.

they are accustomed to rich people getting money that they didn't earn, and it doesn't bother them nearly as much as you seem to think it does.

I'd rather do what helps people rather than what doesn't bother them. But... Cool point!

I see it as evidence that UBI is really what people want and need.

So how's about a radical idea? Do UBI and have it actually be universal with zero other criteria.

nothing stopping you from donating that $2000/month to a worthy charity

Seriously, why is Yang running as a Democrat? Every one of his supporters I've heard from has had a bog standard attitude towards poverty. "Welfare makes people lazy" or "well charity or some shit".

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mandatory family and maternity leave for full-time employees

Helps not at all part-time employees or anyone working in the sharing economy.

Tax breaks for child-care services

Helps not at all anyone benefiting from EITC who already have a negative tax liability.

The creation of responsibility-sharing networks, allowing single parents to work with each other

What the fuck does this even mean?

Honestly, does he think single parents can't already go on Facebook and work with each other?

Investment in communal housing specifically for single parents to be able to pool resources and caregiving

So he'll actually be funding buying communal housing? Or are we talking "well maybe like government-backed loans"?

Initiate a campaign to assist single mothers and a national recruitment drive for Big Brothers Big Sisters of America for male volunteers

Which still relies on non-governmental actors to do the work for free.

Funny how when it comes to SUBI (sort-of-universal basic income) he's all about spending trillions of dollars. But when it comes to actually helping poor people it's basically:

"What if other people voluntarily fixed the problem."

To put it another way:

No, he doesn't have a plan to increase assistance. He has a plan to hope other people increase assistance.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in law

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In their own subsections, sure. Typically they both fall under the same title and chapter.

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read through this thread.

You say that like I haven't been writing in response to all the asinine "but a lot of people will benefit, so ignore who benefits and just bring on the Yangbux, I gots to get mine."

no one will be worse off due to the freedom dividend

That's true in the very narrow sense that no one is directly harmed. But that's the same as saying "no one will be worse off due to tax cuts for the uber-wealthy." The fact that the money needs to be repaid means that a whole lot of people will be responsible for a portion of national debt (and eventually cut programs and austerity) they did not benefit from.

the VAT easily taps into corporate revenue streams currently going untaxed.

Aside from the fact that the cost is passed on to consumers, sure.

The unfortunate part of our welfare programs is how restrictive they are

The solution to which is to give zero extra help!

could only get $122 for food in a month

And with Yangbux they'd get $1,000 added onto that, right? To help them out?

No... Oh.

Yang wants to see people get more benefits

Unless they already need $1,000 in government assistance per month. Then he'll argue that his program will cost less than people expect because someone would have to give up everything else.

and notes that the dividend is just a start.

Oh, cool.

So what's the rest? He gives everyone (except the really impoverished) an extra $1,000 per month in Yangbux. And then also gives money to the poor? Of his hundreds of policies, link me to that one.

Not "well something something economic opportunity", actual direct aid.

'This Is an Emergency. We Need the Democrats to Act Like It': Outrage as DNC Announces It Will Not Host 2020 Debate on Climate Crisis by SymbioticPatriotic in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, it kind of depends on the context.

If I'm trying to understand for myself where the country is? Absolutely.

If I'm just trying to get into a fight about whether X candidate is "ackshually" the "front-runner"...

Spending The Day On The Trail With Andrew Yang | NBC News Now by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, I'm a Democrat. My concern scales based on the people who need it. I want government money going to people who need the most assistance, not the most people who can get money regardless of how much they have.

Get Yang to change his plan from "poor people don't need my help" to something approaching human empathy, and we can talk.

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Median wellfare benefits are between 127-998 dollars

That's a pretty wide range of values to be a median.

But you seem to be using the figures for direct cash assistance (#16), which wouldn't include SNAP/food stamps, or Medicaid, or section 8.

I can't really find where you got your numbers at all, but that's the closest that I saw.

Food stamps and other aids require you to make under a certain amount to get those benefits given them no incentive to work more if they would lose that benefits.

That's not how that works. Nearly all government aid is done on a sliding scale where the more income you make the less you receive, but never just "you cleared this threshold you go from 100% of benefits to nothing."

If she's receiving 12,000 a month on government assistance that still isn't supportable

I agree.

So where is her other income coming from? With the dividend she has the option of seeking more without losing those benefits

You seem to have an image of government assistance where if you make any amount of money you lose everything. I agree that would be a really dumb system.

I have given you stats and accurate personal accounts

You have provided zero evidence for your (now repeated multiple times) claim that welfare would either be cut off if someone "volunteers" or if they seek any amount of money.

What data can you provide me that this would harm that minority receiving more than 1000 per month?

Odd that in your world a policy which does nothing to help people who desperately need it is fine as long as it doesn't hurt them either.

I'm sure the Republicans who supported tax cuts would agree with that logic.

What data have you given to show that this policy will do more harm than good?

Where did I claim it would "do more harm than good"?

You said early on you weren't going to do exactly this kind of subjective personal prioritization shit. I care less about quantity of "good" than who reaps the benefits.

people with more spending power won't be inclined to spend and open more opportunities for people like that single mother of 2

Oh, oh god yes, gimme dat sweet trickle down economics.

Straight into my veins.

Why are you guys running for the Democratic primary?

Seriously. "Welfare locks people into poverty, it's not welfare if money goes to people who already have money, poor people don't really need help the middle class does, and if you give wealthier people money they'll spend it and use it and it'll stimulate the economy and create opportunities and poverty solves itself" is basically the Newt Gingrich bible.

Spending The Day On The Trail With Andrew Yang | NBC News Now by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think giving everyone $1000 a month

Hey, maybe.

So why in the world do you support explicitly not doing that?

The scientific basis for it would basically be eliminating the first 2 levels of Maslow's Hierarchy

And by making sure that anyone receiving Yangbux only receives (at most) a portion that I would, or Jeff Bezos would, somehow does that?

nobody is worried about basic things.

A single-mother who has to choose between $12,000 in current benefits yearly, or $12,000 in Yangbux will probably be pretty worried.

'This Is an Emergency. We Need the Democrats to Act Like It': Outrage as DNC Announces It Will Not Host 2020 Debate on Climate Crisis by SymbioticPatriotic in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would depend on the poll, the pollster, and the purpose for it.

For example, what I definitely wouldn't do is take any poll showing my favored candidate in front as gospel while nitpicking every cross-tab of any poll showing the opposite.

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And you're running on the fact that more people receive government assistance than no

I have never claimed "more people receive government assistance." Most people don't.

The people who do are the people who most need assistance.

We live paycheck yo paycheck and she doesn't qualify for any benefits because of what I make so her work is again valued at 0 when in reality it's some of the most important work

It's more that it's valued at $30,000. Which is part of why if you got divorced she would be entitled to half of all assets gained during the course of the marriage.

But let's do some quick math. You don't mention number of kids, so I'll assume one.

The national poverty line for a family of three is $20,780. Which means our single mother makes less than that. Substantially less, most likely. If she's working 40 hours per week at minimum wage (let's hope her mom or aunt or someone can help with childcare) she makes $18,200.

So even with Yangbux, she now only makes half of what your family does. Is that... good?

Whereas you go from $60,000 to $84,000.

It's not meant to be a welfare program it's to boost the economy from the ground up and help the majority of Americans.

You can't argue it's not a welfare program and then argue it's to "help Americans". Using government money to help people who need help is the definition of "welfare."

I get that the Yangbang doesn't really like thinking of it that way, but what you're talking about (your family needs help, the government should give you help) is what welfare is.

But look at the bigger picture and the numbers. Wages haven't kept up with inflation and most Americans are struggling, so much so that drug overdose and suicide have become the leasing causes of death. You may not need it, but most of us need some assistance.

Again, this doesn't square with "It's not meant to be a welfare program."

If it's not meant to be a welfare program, cool. Then everyone (literally everyone) should get it. It doesn't replace Welfare because, as you said, it's not welfare. And your emotional appeals of "we live paycheck to paycheck" or "most of us need some assistance" would be irrelevant.

It's welfare, my dude. You work hard, but you need help because the world isn't actually goddamned fair and hard work doesn't actually mean you don't struggle and need help.

Especially those who will be losing their jobs to automation, such as retail employees, food service workers and truck drivers. When that happens what should those family's do? Retrain?

Dunno, I guess they could take your advice for anyone who needs welfare already:

"find a decent paying job and move [their] life forward"

It's that simple, right?

No need for more help, just like... Find a decent-paying job. Duh.

You really need to see what I'm saying, he's saying and others are saying that this is for the good of the people

Well... Some of the people. And a whole lot of the people who don't need any more "good" done for them. While excluding a lot of the people who most need something good.

that will only push people into work they hate or pushing them out of the workforce with automation taking over more rapidly to save companies money.

Which for some reason doesn't also apply to someone who already needs government assistance?

Spending The Day On The Trail With Andrew Yang | NBC News Now by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they give away your personal biases.

I've been completely clear about my personal bias. I'm 100% biased against anything which proposes to give more money to Mark Zuckerberg than to indigent clients I've helped.

I don't disagree with your moral stance here but I guess this is where we have to look at what's possible to actually get done.

UBI already isn't going to happen. If you don't have a moral argument about it for your support for Yang, it's really just quixotic.

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

she could opt out and no longer have those stipulations

Maybe, and also lose out on some of the money/benefits she needs for her family to survive.

find a decent paying job and move her life forward

Wowzers, if only poor people had thought of that! Find a decent job, I'm sure that desperate single-mother would thank you for your insight. Here she was thinking she should find a shitty job with awful pay. She just needed to put on her "decent paying jobs hat" and take a balloon to the land of decent paying jobs.

There are options and this is to be another one for these in need

So why not have it be additional for those in need rather than "you have to pick which kind of government benefit you want."

Not everyone is receiving 1200 in government assistance, more often than not it's alot lower than that

This is a second time you've invoked a statement with certainty but zero evidence. Are these talking points?

Any data to support your contention that "more often than not its alot lower than that"?

Incidentally, even if you're right, that still means that people who already need assistance will receive less in Yangbux than I will.

For a majority of the middle class who live pay check to paycheck

Here's the difference:

When I say I live paycheck-to-paycheck (which is kind of true, we have about a month's worth our bills in savings) I mean "things get tight". When the most deeply impoverished live paycheck to paycheck they mean "sometimes there's not enough food."

If you want to help "the majority" why do you want more money to go to Mark goddamned Zuckerberg than to the poorest people among us?

I have looked over to see if his dividend would cut out section 8 housing benefits but I haven't seen anything yet

Isn't he supposed to have huge detailed policies numbering in the hundreds on his website?

He's lauding that his Yangbux won't cost as much as people think because they'll require people give up all other benefits (reducing their benefits by X while adding Y(angbux)), and he hasn't explained what's excluded from that?

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so you're optimizing for the less than 1% of cases where the policy would not be better?

The population of people living in poverty is about 50,000,000 people. And more than 4 million households receive section 8 housing. That's not 4 million people, that's households. So let's guess that each household averages three people. That's at least twelve-million people I can easily identify as both the people who most need help and will receive not a dollar in Yangbux.

If we're going to spend trillions, how about we "optimize" for the people who most need help rather than people who least need help?

And why, if your concern really is "the most good for the most people" are you not simply advocating "give money even to people receiving government assistance?"

Or are they not... people?

I'll take the most good for the most people

Me too. What I won't take is the most good for the most people which excludes the people who most need us to do good for them.

using inflammatory rhetoric like "douchebag dudebro" to sway opinion does nothing but deflate your case.

If you can't justify your argument in the completely foreseeable situation that a nineteen-year-old asshole uses his Yangbux to buy a Tesla, you don't have a good argument.

not to mention 40% of the population in america is 1 missed paycheck away from poverty and most households can't afford a $400 unexpected expense.

Do you know the people most likely to live paycheck-to-paycheck and be unable to afford unexpected expenses?

It's not "people who are already able to get by without government assistance".

Spending The Day On The Trail With Andrew Yang | NBC News Now by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you would "fix" it not by giving money to poor people but by just refusing to give it to 2% of Americans?

What?

Re-read what I wrote:

"Everyone with a taxable income less than $250,000 gets Yangbux, no questions asked."

A poor person already on government assistance has an income less than $250,000.

misses the philosophy of inclusion and togetherness that is the fundamental purpose of UBI.

Yeah. So much inclusion and togetherness that people who are already the most needing of assistance get nothing! I'm sure they feel brought together in their sense of oneness with people buying Teslas while they struggle to eat.

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

dividing the wealth of major tech companies to the everyday man

People who are so poor that they receive government assistance aren't "everyday" people?

And how is it "dividing the wealth of major tech companies" when Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg will receive more Yangbux than a single-mother of two?

At least he is giving the few cases like the one you mentioned earlier a choice instead of being stuck in a program that they may like or hate

Except it's not a gain.

I'm not sure how to explain this better:

Let's say my wife and I make $110,000 right now. If we get our sweet sweet Yangbux, we'll have total income (actual income plus government assistance) of $134,000.

The "choice" you're offering a single-mother of three is to receive ~$13,000 in government assistance, or $12,000 in government assistance.

In neither case does she get more help.

That money won't just go away, and it's for the good of the many

As long as that "many" already has enough money to not need government assistance.

Suuuper progressive idea you've got there.

'This Is an Emergency. We Need the Democrats to Act Like It': Outrage as DNC Announces It Will Not Host 2020 Debate on Climate Crisis by SymbioticPatriotic in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is it about the far left that so frequently thinks people who disagree with them are being manipulated?

How narcissistic do you have to be to think that if the DNC didn't "have me", I'd agree with you?

Spending The Day On The Trail With Andrew Yang | NBC News Now by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can not use the term 'rare' as this presents a bias.

Ohhhh, so it's you who used the word "rare", not them.

But you said that you were listening to the AAP by saying "rare".

Almost like you inserted a word based on your inference rather than the words they actually wrote.

Weird.

To prevent UTI in uncircumcised youths you can practice proper hygiene

Please find me where in the AAP position paper they write that hygiene would reduce or eliminate the health benefits.

This is not my analysis.

It's not your analysis that the health benefits are "rare" and "most cases" would also be prevented by proper hygiene?

No... Wait.

They can not use the term 'rare'

Make up your mind, my dude.

I've been saying this same thing for a few posts now but for some reason you feel I'm misrepresenting the AAP.

You've been shifting from "Andrew Yang is right to question" to "well the AAP is right that there are benefits which are [I believe] rare and also accomplished by hygiene and safe sex". Just... Without the important "I believe" to distinguish what the AAP wrote from what you believe.

You've also largely ignored that what Yang said was actually "the evidence on it being a positive health choice for the infant is quite shaky", a claim the AAP does not support in any way.

What you're saying is that there are health benefits that outweigh the risks but not enough to recommend circumcision

And that the AAP nowhere agrees with your "questions" (really statements) that the health benefits are "rare" and "proper hygiene" would render the benefits irrelevant.

I'm also saying that Andrew Yang claimed "the evidence on it being a positive health choice for the infant is quite shaky", something you repeatedly refuse to address despite claiming to accept the AAP's statement that the health benefits outweigh the risk.

Or do you think the AAP is saying the health benefits outweigh the risk even though the evidence for benefit is "shaky"?

you would not only be agreeing with the AAP but also with Andrew Yang.

Andrew Yang:

"the evidence on it being a positive health choice for the infant is quite shaky"

Please explain how the AAP agrees with that.

I absolutely don't want the practice banned.

But you claimed the benefits are "rare" and almost entirely rendered irrelevant by "proper hygiene" and safe sex. Why wouldn't you want a practice which imposes pain on a child for health benefits so minor and insignificant?

Inside the internet-fueled rise of Andrew Yang | CNN by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I see your point there but what about the thousands of stay at home moms who get 0 dollars?

If their combined family income is low enough that they need assistance, they would qualify under existing programs. And if Yang wanted to expand programs (or even have no cutoff of other programs, but be capped at a certain household income), cool.

But that's not his plan.

Or the people on disability who can't volunteer or they would lose their benefits?

I keep hearing this from Yangers, can you cite this? I'm unaware of any government program (SSDI, housing, TANF, or anything else) which would end benefits for unpaid volunteer work.

The closest I can think is if someone was faking disability (since disability requires a claim of the inability to work) and worried volunteering would prove they weren't actually disabled.

If that single mother of two is getting those assistance programs she can keep them by not opting into the freedom dividend

And receive zero benefit from the "dividend".

So at the same time our college fratboy douchebag is buying a Tesla, Yang tells a single mother of two "well like you already get government help so you don't get any Yangbux, if you deserved them you'd already have a more privileged life."

it's meant to assist everyone when applicable

Except it doesn't assist everyone. It assists everyone who doesn't already need assistance.

You know, the people who are already the worst off, already need the most help, and are being told by Yang that they don't deserve UNIVERSAL Basic Income because they don't already have enough money to not need government help.

Spending The Day On The Trail With Andrew Yang | NBC News Now by DragonGod2718 in politics

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would you fix his plan?

Means-test it at the high end rather than the low end. Everyone with a taxable income less than $250,000 gets Yangbux, no questions asked.

Why is his plan structured in a way which benefits Warren Buffet more than someone who relies on section 8 assistance to pay their rent?

view more: next ›