USA Politics

Trump had mentioned Norway specifically in that shithole country speech, questioning why they don't get people from Norway instead.

Well, there you go. That's the reason you don't get people from Norway. Ya big dumbo.
 
If Bernie was not already toast before yesterday, he certainly is now. His chances of winning are about as close to zero as you can get ... thank God
 
Onhell said:
Any specific reason as to why you're relieved?
Click to expand...

I disagree with many of his policy proposals (not that they could be implemented anyway). I think he is out of touch with reality and would do some real economic damage. I am no fan of Biden, but think he would be more middle of the road/reasonable.

Not going to vote for Biden or Trump, but I would consider Trump if he were running against Bernie in a lesser of two evils/could we possibly scrape the bottom of the barrel more than this vote.
 
bearfan said:
I disagree with many of his policy proposals (not that they could be implemented anyway). I think he is out of touch with reality and would do some real economic damage. I am no fan of Biden, but think he would be more middle of the road/reasonable.

Not going to vote for Biden or Trump, but I would consider Trump if he were running against Bernie in a lesser of two evils/could we possibly scrape the bottom of the barrel more than this vote.
Click to expand...

That's why I ask, because through this crisis a lot of people, regular folks and politicians alike, to implement a lot of the things he and other democrats like Yang, are proposing. I think it's ridiculous.

Honestly if you even remotely claim to be conservative, the polititians I mean, they should live and die by their convictions and not call for dumb band-aid policies like UBI.
 
Onhell said:
That's why I ask, because through this crisis a lot of people, regular folks and politicians alike, to implement a lot of the things he and other democrats like Yang, are proposing. I think it's ridiculous.

Honestly if you even remotely claim to be conservative, the polititians I mean, they should live and die by their convictions and not call for dumb band-aid policies like UBI.
Click to expand...

I would be okay with UBI if it replaced existing welfare structures and all the overhead that comes with them. Of the two (current v UBI), I would pick UBI. The proposed "send everyone a check" is short term in an unusual situation ... and for me, I would see it as a refund on the insane taxes I pay to start with. Yes, I know people in other countries pay more ... that is their problem :)

As for the politicians, they are interested in gaining or keeping power, with rare exception they are opportunists one and all regardless of party.
 
What rubbed a lot of liberals the wrong way about Yang is that UBI is essentially libertarian policy. Ideally it would be a replacement for other welfare programs, as Bearfan points out.
I think a situation such as this just shows how a UBI type program should always be in place.
 
bearfan said:
I would be okay with UBI if it replaced existing welfare structures and all the overhead that comes with them. Of the two (current v UBI), I would pick UBI. The proposed "send everyone a check" is short term in an unusual situation ... and for me, I would see it as a refund on the insane taxes I pay to start with. Yes, I know people in other countries pay more ... that is their problem :)
Click to expand...
People in other countries get more ;)

UBI is superior. Stop worrying about who qualifies for welfare or whatever, stop worrying about unemployment...just pay anyone who doesn't have a job. That money goes right back into the economy.
 
Mosh said:
What rubbed a lot of liberals the wrong way about Yang is that UBI is essentially libertarian policy. Ideally it would be a replacement for other welfare programs, as Bearfan points out.
I think a situation such as this just shows how a UBI type program should always be in place.
Click to expand...
But how will people live without the government saying here is money you can spend x% on this and y% on that and z% on the other thing? Sure, some people are morons, but no need to do the typical governmental race to find the lowest common denominator and treat the universe as such
 
Onhell said:
dumb band-aid policies like UBI.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you are truly familiar with what UBI is, and what it does to an economy. It's an excellent policy proposal, in my opinion. I very much appreciated Andrew Yang bringing it into the forefront - that was one of the reasons he was my favorite candidate.

Perun said:
I wonder if I will live to see the day when we have a system in which the individual is not merely an agent of production and a redistributor of money.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the sentiment. What system do you have in mind?

bearfan said:
But how will people live without the government saying here is money you can spend x% on this and y% on that and z% on the other thing? Sure, some people are morons, but no need to do the typical governmental race to find the lowest common denominator and treat the universe as such
Click to expand...

Unless you have a command economy, the government doesn't do that. I think you are underestimating the way "some people who are morons" impact people who aren't morons. Not just morons, but people who are unethical as well. Individuals don't exist in isolation, they are interdependent with their communities. The purpose of government is to ensure a flourishing community. Government may overreach, it may become too restrictive, but it doesn't necessarily do so. There are thousands upon thousands of instances in human history where government regulation and intervention resulted in a greater utilitarian outcome than there would be otherwise.
 
Last edited:
The Flash said:
Unless you have a command economy, the government doesn't do that. I think you are underestimating the way "some people who are morons" impact people who aren't morons. Not just morons, but people who are unethical as well. Individuals don't exist in isolation, they are interdependent with their communities. The purpose of government is to ensure a flourishing community. Government may overreach, it may become too restrictive, but it doesn't necessarily do so. There are thousands upon thousands of instances in human history where government regulation and intervention resulted in a greater utilitarian outcome than there would be otherwise.
Click to expand...

Of course they do that ... you qualify for 'x program .. here is a debit card or something, but you can only use it on food. Here is a housing voucher, you can only use it on housing. Here is a a child care deduction, only use it for child care .. and on and on and on. There is tons of overhead with that at various levels of government. I would much rather say here is some chunk of money .. do what you want with it, hopefully something wise ..but up to the individual.
 
I will add unemployment is the worst of them all ... you don't have a job, here is some money. You might say .. hey I can pick up some part time work or I can take an entry level position in a different field and make less money now, but it is a long term career path. Government then say ... great, no more money for us. Stupid beyond belief.
 
I've become slightly more fiscally conservative in my 30s and I just smh when people are losing their shit. I just think, well, you should've had your 8 month emergency savings.
The Flash said:
I wonder if you are truly familiar with what UBI is, and what it does to an economy. It's an excellent policy proposal, in my opinion. I very much appreciated Andrew Yang bringing it into the forefront - that was one of the reasons he was my favorite candidate.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the 1000 a month he proposed wasn't enough to replace the numerous benefits some people were on. It didn't account for state either. 1,000 in Cali or NY is nothing, but in AZ, NV, NM or TX it goes a longer way. It would have to be adjusted by state and by income at least in that there should be a max threshhold to cap it. I don't agree with the U in UBI. Bill Gates doesn't need 1,000 a month, nor does Warren Buffet or the Waltons, etc. So what should it be? 30K a year? 40?
 
Onhell said:
I've become slightly more fiscally conservative in my 30s and I just smh when people are losing their shit. I just think, well, you should've had your 8 month emergency savings.


Yes, but the 1000 a month he proposed wasn't enough to replace the numerous benefits some people were on. It didn't account for state either. 1,000 in Cali or NY is nothing, but in AZ, NV, NM or TX it goes a longer way. It would have to be adjusted by state and by income at least in that there should be a max threshhold to cap it. I don't agree with the U in UBI. Bill Gates doesn't need 1,000 a month, nor does Warren Buffet or the Waltons, etc. So what should it be? 30K a year? 40?
Click to expand...

The $1K is not really intended to be UBI .. it is to float people temporarily (think there will be 2 checks .. so $2K). I agree, there should be some means testing . My main thought is it just replaces welfare with somewhat similar income thresholds
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top