Wang Chung Wu Tang Clan Thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,412
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#1
Hey, if you guys are going to make tribute threads to all of the other idiots running for the dem nomination...................




Andrew Yang Is the Anti–Elizabeth Warren
A progressive who wants to empower the little guy instead of big government
Shikha Dalmia | 9.13.2019 3:45 PM


(JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS/Newscom)
Andrew Yang got the least amount of speaking time of any candidate on the Democratic primary debate stage last night—less than half of Joe Biden's. But this son of Taiwanese immigrants still managed to distinguish himself as a New New Democrat who broadly shares his party's progressive goals but doesn't always endorse its big-government solutions. A lawyer turned entrepreneur, Yang seems to understand intuitively that good public policy involves not Elizabeth Warren–style 10-point programs that empower bureaucrats and technocrats—or Bernie Sanders–style hostility to private industry—but devolving power to individuals.

He kicked off in a decidedly un-Kennedyesque spirit by extolling the primacy of the individual over the collective. "We have to get our country working for us again, not the other way around," he declared. "We have to see ourselves as the owners and shareholders of this democracy rather than inputs into a giant machine."
That doesn't make him a libertarian. But as my colleague Christian Britschgi points out, he made probably the most libertarian pitch possible for his universal basic income scheme last night when he announced that his campaign would hand a "freedom dividend" of $1,000 a month to 10 American families for the whole year. To qualify, they'd have to go to his website and explain how "you can solve your own problems better than any politician."
It is not surprising, then, that Yang is no fan of the public school monopoly (whose backers he has accused in the past of being in "bed with teachers unions") and is a supporter of charter schools. This is increasingly becoming hate speech in Democratic circles, which is why he pulled his punches last night, declaring that he was "pro–good school." Still, he seemed to suggest that the solution to the poor education in the country was not necessarily "putting money into schools" but "more directly into the families and neighborhoods."
Where Yang is most disappointing is on health care. Given his preference for putting more money in Americans' own pockets to let them solve their problems, you might think he'd be friendly to expanding medical coverage through more health savings accounts (IRA-style accounts that allow individuals to set aside a certain amount of money tax-free to buy coverage and pay deductibles)—or, better still, giving individuals the same tax breaks to purchase coverage that employers currently get. Instead, he backs Medicare for All, the biggest of big-government health care solutions. If there is a silver lining, it is that he does still want to improve incentives for physicians and providers to lower costs by avoiding redundant testing and procedures.

Yang has by far the best framing on immigration. Julian Castro's bold-ish proposal to decriminalize immigration changed the terms of the debate in the Democratic field: He went beyond vague generalities and suggested a very specific reform—scrapping the Immigration and Nationality Act's Section 1325, which makes illegal entry into the U.S. a federal crime and set the stage for Donald Trump's border crackdown and draconian child separation policies. But that change still doesn't make immigrants sound like the assets they are. Yang, on the other hand, pointed out last night that America's ability to attract "human capital" has been "integral to its continued success." Immigrants or their children, he noted, founded almost half of America's Fortune 500 companies. In vocabulary that should warm the hearts of market enthusiasts, he noted that "we have to compete for this talent." This is a fundamentally positive, Reaganeseque vision of both America and immigrants that no other candidate is espousing.

Yang isn't any kind of limited-government constitutionalist. But he isn't a big government liberal either. He comes across as the anti-Warren. She likes top-down solutions where powerful bureaucrats ride on their white horse to smash big business and protect the little guy. (Think of the all-powerful Consumer Financial Protection Agency that she pushed President Barack Obama to create.) He likes bottom-up approaches that empower the little guy. She is a bureaucrat with "a plan." He is a scrappy entrepreneur who speaks the language of ordinary people who've never been within shouting distance of a wonk.

He is a different kind of progressive.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,032
8,468
1,743
#2
I kinda don’t have a problem with this guy. He’s just a dreamer.

And you nailed it when you said “all of the other idiots”.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,412
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#3
I'm a conservative — and I could live with Andrew Yang as president

Karol Markowicz,
Opinion Contributor

Oct 26, 2019, 9:46 AM





Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Drew Angerer/Getty Images


  • If primary elections were decided on likability, Andrew Yang would be running away with the 2020 Democratic primary.
  • Yang's Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income proposal, isn't perfect, but it's preferable to a lot of other plans proposed by Democrats such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
  • Yang is genuine and does not come off as condescending to conservatives and Trump voters.
  • Karol Markowicz is a writer in Brooklyn, New York.
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
The presidential candidate you'd most like to have a beer with is typically the one who wins in the head-to-head general election. But the candidate you'd most like to have a beer with does not necessarily win a crowded primary. If that were the case, Andrew Yang would be the runaway favorite in the Democratic field.

Affable, jokey, and armed with numbers and statistics, Yang has managed to make all four Democratic debates, a feat that plenty of established candidates have failed to accomplish. He's used his time in a meticulous way, banging the drum for his key proposal: universal basic income, or, as he calls it, the "Freedom Dividend."
Yang's plan isn't especially compatible with conservatism, and yet he frequently gets praise and approval from people on the right. His personality is a big draw. In an especially divided time, he doesn't lob the insults that many of his fellow candidates do nor talk down to voters who aren't part of the Democratic-primary constituency.
Yang's hallmark plan falls short
Frankly, Yang's plan is mostly absurd. He's correctly concerned that many jobs are being replaced by computers and robots, but his doomsday predictions are somewhat farfetched. He predicts a mass replacement of human workers by robots will happen far sooner than most experts predict.
Yang points out again and again that the most common job in a majority of states is "truck driver" and warns self-driving trucks are coming. He says it will cause "riots in the street."

To counter this coming disaster, Yang's Freedom Dividend would give every single adult American $1,000 a month.
This plainly makes no sense. Those truck drivers who are imminently about to be replaced make about $50,000 to $80,000 a year, according to Yang. What is $12,000 going to do for them?
But it's not meant to replace income, Yang says: It's supposed to supplement it. The frequently asked questions on his website about the Freedom Dividend answers the question about whether people will still work like this: "In our plan, each adult would receive only $12,000 a year. This is barely enough to live on in many places and certainly not enough to afford much in the way of experiences or advancement. To get ahead meaningfully, people will still need to get out there and work."
Work which jobs? We were just told that the truck drivers would be summarily fired when self-driving trucks became the standard and would riot in the street. And as Yang himself said on the "Joe Rogan Experience" podcast in February, most of these drivers are high school educated. Yang said they didn't love school 25 years ago; they're not about to go and get recertified for some other job that probably doesn't exist.

Yang's charisma stands out
While Yang's signature plan may not pass muster, the proposal is mostly irrelevant to his draw.
What Yang has — which so many of the other Democratic candidates lack — is a real perspective that the US is not actually divided into left and right. Yang isn't on the stage to take from some people and give to others. Even his UBI would pay the same $1,000 to everyone, whether they need it or not. He's not there to sow resentment or to insult half the country.
It's this that makes him so likable and such an important presence on the stage. When Beto O'Rourke called Elizabeth Warren "punitive" during the last debate, he could have been talking to any one of the other candidates.
Yes, Warren's wealth tax takes the idea further than the others, but each leading Democratic candidate has a clear group of supporters who get the majority of the benefit from the candidate's major plans. When Bernie Sanders says he wants to cancel all student debt, it's clear that it's a gimme for his young fan base. It's "tuition should be free" not "electric bills should be free" or any number of things that would have an effect on a wide variety of people.

By contrast, Yang is trying to reach all types of people. When speaking with Rogan, Yang told the story of Dennis the trucker in Iowa, telling him that he "doesn't feel that Democrats care about people like me." Yang seems as if he cares about all of us.
Another part of the appeal is Yang says things that Democrats are not really allowed to say.
"The media is not being honest about all the economic drivers," Yang told Rogan. "They're blaming racism, Russia, Facebook, the FBI. And if you look at the voter-district data on the district-by-district basis, there's a straight line-up between the adoption of industrial robots in that voting district and the movement toward Trump."
And while Yang's plans might be far-fetched, he's also standing alongside candidates such as Sanders and Warren, who want to scrap the entire private health-insurance industry in support of their "Medicare for All" plan. Suddenly, $1,000 per person per month doesn't seem crazy.

For conservatives, if we have to pick an expensive, ridiculous plan, Yang's seems like the best of the bunch. For most people it would translate to keeping more of their own money. For the rest it would replace certain welfare programs.
And he doesn't seem to hate us. That's the biggest plus of all.

This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author(s).
 

Patron

Wrangler
Oct 12, 2019
216
26
28
29
Dustin,ok
#5
I never heard Yang address Globe Elilte, Deepstate, perpetual war, Soros influenced, perverted slime, i guess he just does not have the balls. This is the time in our Republics history that requires courage.
 

P4L

Sheriff
Nov 7, 2007
3,018
6,625
1,743
Kenosha, WI
#7
I never heard Yang address Globe Elilte, Deepstate, perpetual war, Soros influenced, perverted slime, i guess he just does not have the balls. This is the time in our Republics history that requires courage.
So I gotta ask, are you actually the result of someone creating an AI that was only provided the articles Cobra used to post?
 

Patron

Wrangler
Oct 12, 2019
216
26
28
29
Dustin,ok
#8
Maybe Yang could google Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, then ask mayor Pete what he thinks about the 2400+ babies killed In South Bend found at the good Docs. Home in Illinois.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,273
24,238
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#9
Yang is a lot better than the other candidates but he has absolutely no shot in todays radical Democrat party. That's what's so scary, he's still very left of center but evidently not left enough for the liberals in this country.

I still think ubi is the perfect example of big government empowerment at the expense of the little guy, and could never actually vote for someone pushing that, but he's a LOT less scary than most of the other candidates.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,412
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#11
Not sure UBI is the answer to anything but more citizens becoming titty suckers
Glad you are not sure because the data has shown where this is trialed that you are wrong.
Think about it. Forget what has happened in the past in the US and look at the two available options:

You are poor and are told that you, and everyone else, get to start your month with $1000. That is what you get. It is then your goal to try to use that $1000 help yourself and hopefully not be poor anymore by working, selling, getting educated, creating, or whatever. Sure, you can try to live on $1000 a month. But, being that everyone gets it, you are going to be bottom of the barrel if you choose it.

-OR-

You are poor and you are offered somewhere around $1000 a month through various programs. But, to get it, you have to prove you are poor and are staying poor. As soon as you work, create, sell and are not quite as poor, they shut you out from the money and you are working poor instead of non-working poor.

Given those scenarios and take away the fact that we are all cozy and accustomed to the failed great society welfare state, it would be idiot logic to choose the second idea of proving poorness. But, that is what everyone votes for every time, even when claiming otherwise.

Finally, this would be the conservative's best friend when trying to woo the moderate voter.
Liberals:
- Hey, we need to raise the min wage!
- Hey, we need to make university free!
- Hey, we need a federal program to help people get phones!
Conservative/moderate response:
- Workers already get $1000 a month, from that they can negotiate their own wage
- Students get $1000 a month. They can use it to pay for school if they want
-- People get $1000 a month, they can buy their own phone/heating oil/etc

Arguing against this as "free money" is arguing from a conservative utopia that will never exist where government helps nobody. What arguing against it is really doing is arguing for the means-tested, incentive killing programs that are there now and the other dems want to pile on more of.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,412
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#12
Yang is a lot better than the other candidates but he has absolutely no shot in todays radical Democrat party. That's what's so scary, he's still very left of center but evidently not left enough for the liberals in this country.

I still think ubi is the perfect example of big government empowerment at the expense of the little guy, and could never actually vote for someone pushing that, but he's a LOT less scary than most of the other candidates.
He went from a complete political unknown to 4th-5th in most of the polls and while bringing in the same amount of money as Harris with no big money supporters and making all of the debates. Sure, he isn't the leader, but saying he has absolutely no shot isn't realistic at all.

See above the rebuttal to calling this big government empowerment. It is pragmatically the exact opposite because the idea of going from what we have now to no government is too unrealistic to even consider.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,378
6,881
1,743
Yukon, OK
#13
This one word is what makes or breaks the idea of a UBI for me. If it actually makes it as an OR, then I'm good with trying it. If it ends up as an AND then no deal from me. If someone can convince me that UBI, if passed, will completely replace our current welfare then I'm listening. Knowing how government's gonna government (and dem's gonna dem) though, it just seems impossible that it would be implemented that way because it'd be "oppressive" or "racist" or some other bs.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,412
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#14
This one word is what makes or breaks the idea of a UBI for me. If it actually makes it as an OR, then I'm good with trying it. If it ends up as an AND then no deal from me. If someone can convince me that UBI, if passed, will completely replace our current welfare then I'm listening. Knowing how government's gonna government (and dem's gonna dem) though, it just seems impossible that it would be implemented that way because it'd be "oppressive" or "racist" or some other bs.
That is the plan. The federal payments that don't go away are SS or SSDI which the person pays into (SSI does not stack). Veterans benefits also of course. Obviously state and local programs/food kitchens etc are not affected.
I don't think it is a good idea to stay with a bad idea instead of a good one on the concept that others will try to screw up the good one. Sort of like saying "Welp the pentagon paid $640 for a toilet seat and they bought a Navy plane that the Navy didn't want so I am not going to support having a military any more." Government is going to government, it is our job to advocate for it to be as good as it can be. This is better than any alternative given by either party even though it is obviously not perfect.
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#15
Glad you are not sure because the data has shown where this is trialed that you are wrong.
Think about it. Forget what has happened in the past in the US and look at the two available options:

You are poor and are told that you, and everyone else, get to start your month with $1000. That is what you get. It is then your goal to try to use that $1000 help yourself and hopefully not be poor anymore by working, selling, getting educated, creating, or whatever. Sure, you can try to live on $1000 a month. But, being that everyone gets it, you are going to be bottom of the barrel if you choose it.

-OR-

You are poor and you are offered somewhere around $1000 a month through various programs. But, to get it, you have to prove you are poor and are staying poor. As soon as you work, create, sell and are not quite as poor, they shut you out from the money and you are working poor instead of non-working poor.

Given those scenarios and take away the fact that we are all cozy and accustomed to the failed great society welfare state, it would be idiot logic to choose the second idea of proving poorness. But, that is what everyone votes for every time, even when claiming otherwise.

Finally, this would be the conservative's best friend when trying to woo the moderate voter.
Liberals:
- Hey, we need to raise the min wage!
- Hey, we need to make university free!
- Hey, we need a federal program to help people get phones!
Conservative/moderate response:
- Workers already get $1000 a month, from that they can negotiate their own wage
- Students get $1000 a month. They can use it to pay for school if they want
-- People get $1000 a month, they can buy their own phone/heating oil/etc

Arguing against this as "free money" is arguing from a conservative utopia that will never exist where government helps nobody. What arguing against it is really doing is arguing for the means-tested, incentive killing programs that are there now and the other dems want to pile on more of.
I don't know where you've lived, or what you've seen or experienced, but a no questions asked guaranteed money for life is just a recipe for disaster for a good chunk of the population. let me explain.

IMO, the biggest reasons for underachievement and poor economic circumstances are:
- laziness (which encompasses lack of education)
- substance abuse
- poor money management
- fatherless homes
- mental illness in varying degrees

So we give every adult $1000/mo. How's that gonna solve, remediate or incentivize the reduction of any of the above?
- Laziness? it will further promote it especially since healthcare is now free for most of these
- Substance abuse? it will further promote it
- Poor money management? might help in some cases, might just get wasted especially combined with the laziness problem
- Fatherless homes? I'll be generous and say some fathers may be more tempted to stay with their kid's mothers. But let's face it, there's a lot of irresponsibility in the entire fatherless homes dynamic, mom included. I doubt $1,000/month would suddenly solve that issue.
- mental illness? Hard to imagine $1,000/mo would suddenly enable someone incapable of economically managing their affairs without one of the above also being an issue. Certainly won't solve the problem.


So what are we left with? My bet is $1,000/mo might ultimately help a small portion of the population, yet it's paid out to the entire population thus resulting in a massive waste of money for little or no net gain.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,273
24,238
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#16
Knowing how government's gonna government (and dem's gonna dem) though, it just seems impossible that it would be implemented that way becaus
This. It's a virtual impossibility that politicians won't start campaigning on the unfairness of upper middle class getting the same amount as the poor. It would happen with the very next election after ubi was put in place.

We know for an absolute fact that our government cannot responsibility or efficiently administer welfare...we'd be stupid to believe that will magically change if we expand it.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,412
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#17
I don't know where you've lived, or what you've seen or experienced, but a no questions asked guaranteed money for life is just a recipe for disaster for a good chunk of the population. let me explain.

IMO, the biggest reasons for underachievement and poor economic circumstances are:
- laziness (which encompasses lack of education)
- substance abuse
- poor money management
- fatherless homes
- mental illness in varying degrees

So we give every adult $1000/mo. How's that gonna solve, remediate or incentivize the reduction of any of the above?
- Laziness? it will further promote it especially since healthcare is now free for most of these
- Substance abuse? it will further promote it
- Poor money management? might help in some cases, might just get wasted especially combined with the laziness problem
- Fatherless homes? I'll be generous and say some fathers may be more tempted to stay with their kid's mothers. But let's face it, there's a lot of irresponsibility in the entire fatherless homes dynamic, mom included. I doubt $1,000/month would suddenly solve that issue.
- mental illness? Hard to imagine $1,000/mo would suddenly enable someone incapable of economically managing their affairs without one of the above also being an issue. Certainly won't solve the problem.


So what are we left with? My bet is $1,000/mo might ultimately help a small portion of the population, yet it's paid out to the entire population thus resulting in a massive waste of money for little or no net gain.
Fatherless homes is easy. What was the policy that created fatherless homes? (Hint, it is the policy you are defending. And don’t say no I’m not because, again, there are ONLY two options available. NOBODY other than Yang is running in getting rid of the means-tested welfare that started this.

Poor money management. People manage money better when they have autonomy to decide what to do. Treating them like babies and giving food money, Heater money, phone money worsens it.

Substance abuse is worse in economically harmed areas. Put more money to be spent by people who will spend it in those areas and it will be better not worse.

It is unrealistic to expect any one policy to “solve the problem”. Your “laziness” trope has already been shown to be wrong in UBI trials. It won’t solve all problems, it is simply far better than the only alternative. There is plenty of data backing all this. Your opinion is an opinion, I changed my mind on this after looking at data. You know nothing about me, but analysis of data, especially incomplete data, is a big part of how I earn a living.
Making unbacked statements like “no questions asked” are exactly the methods of those with a shoot from the hip opinion and nothing to back it.

Being that the two republicans and 19 or so dems running against Yang all back means-tested welfare it is likely a candidate that thinks like you do will win. That doesn’t make it correct.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,412
32,371
1,743
oklahoma city
#18
This. It's a virtual impossibility that politicians won't start campaigning on the unfairness of upper middle class getting the same amount as the poor. It would happen with the very next election after ubi was put in place.

We know for an absolute fact that our government cannot responsibility or efficiently administer welfare...we'd be stupid to believe that will magically change if we expand it.
If we every cut spending kids will be starving to death in the streets.

Adding statements about what in theory could happen if everything went as bad as possible does not change the benefit of the idea.

Yes, it is possible kids could starve but very unlikely. Yes, the middle class could vote directly against their own economic self interest but it is very unlikely.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,273
24,238
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#19
He went from a complete political unknown to 4th-5th in most of the polls and while bringing in the same amount of money as Harris with no big money supporters and making all of the debates. Sure, he isn't the leader, but saying he has absolutely no shot isn't realistic at all.

See above the rebuttal to calling this big government empowerment. It is pragmatically the exact opposite because the idea of going from what we have now to no government is too unrealistic to even consider.
Here's something I'm curious about. At what income level would the ubi become a wash? In other words, the point where people start seeing more than 12K coming out of their paychecks and thus actually losing money on the deal. And will that be set in stone or fluid so that future sessions of Congress could run on "moving" that line up or down?
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,378
6,881
1,743
Yukon, OK
#20
That is the plan. The federal payments that don't go away are SS or SSDI which the person pays into (SSI does not stack). Veterans benefits also of course. Obviously state and local programs/food kitchens etc are not affected.
I don't think it is a good idea to stay with a bad idea instead of a good one on the concept that others will try to screw up the good one. Sort of like saying "Welp the pentagon paid $640 for a toilet seat and they bought a Navy plane that the Navy didn't want so I am not going to support having a military any more." Government is going to government, it is our job to advocate for it to be as good as it can be. This is better than any alternative given by either party even though it is obviously not perfect.
I don't either. I just think we have to be VERY careful when pushing for good idea when there's a huge chance of others screwing it up making it something terrible. "Proceed with caution" is all I'm saying.