Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Yang Admits He's Been Lying About Medicare For All" video.

@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj Having a goal of ultimately getting rid of the existing social safety net while immigrants can't get the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend? And using a regressive tax to pay for it? [In Dr. Evil voice]: Riiight.
6
@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj Lying about Medicare for All. Not telling people about the giant asterisk in his freedom with 125 strings attached dividend unless he is specifically asked about it or speaking to a right-wing audience. Telling general audiences that he wants to give people money because there won't be any jobs left in the future, but telling Ben Shapiro that "the magic of a thousand bucks a month is that it is below the poverty level for one person, which will force people to work if they want to have any life of meaning." Because the effects of his proposal will be a world with a few trillionaires and everyone else scraping by on less than the poverty level.
4
The GM strike proved once and for all that there is no such thing as a good private insurance plan. And let's talk about "right of citizenship." Jeff Bezos gets the whole thing. A poor person has to give up one 125 programs. Yang refuses to provide a full list of the programs that people have to forfeit if they take his money. My guess is that those programs affect lot more people than the Yang Gang bangers think. So, if it is a "right of citizenship," does that mean that he thinks of the poor as second class citizens?
4
@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj Any version of a consumption tax is by definition regressive. You can make it less regressive, but it will always be regressive.
3
@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj A regressive tax means that the poor pay a higher percentage of income than the rich. Once again, words don't get to mean what you want them to mean.
3
@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj Then, why did Yang tell Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro that he ultimately wants to get rid of the existing social safety net? Bernie is well aware that there will always be people who can't work and frictional unemployment. And Yang makes his program either/or, so as far as the nonsense that his version isn't regressive, someone who gets more under the current system gets no benefits and has to pay a VAT because Yang refuses to fight tax avoidance and evasion, so they will end up worse off because now they have to pay a new tax. And Yang told Dave Rubin that he wants fewer and fewer people to sign up, so the existing social safety net will wither on the vine. Or, as Grover Norquist put it, to shrink it to the size that you can drown it in the bathtub.
2
@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj Because they hate America and other Americans who don't look like them.
2
@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj Well, Yang told right-wing audiences that he does, which means that he isn't trustworthy.
2
@KEVINLOPEZ-np4kj So? The KKK and the Nation of Islam have long had a relationship over what they see as common goals. The instant that Yang saw a synagogue shooting and started tweeting about how horrible it would be for whites to be a minority, he became the favorite of white supremacists... at least until Tulsi Gabbard entered the race and became the favorite of David Duke by playing both siderism on the shutdown and the wall, and failing to connect the dots with such rhetoric and child kidnapping.
2
It's not like George Lucas owns the phrase! You're just arguing semantics if you aren't fine with that!
2
@vu7419 Actually, I did. Check the link in my previous comment and go to the timestamp mentioned.
1
@darrenfaber2334 If Yang made shoes, and said that he was selling Nike, but they were a different thing, most people would call that a lie. You can be internally consistent and still be lying. His lie is using the name of something else that is already established. If I were running for President and expanded the existing social safety net, and called it the Freedom Dividend, you would call that dishonest because it already means something else.
1
@darrenfaber2334 So, you're using useful idiot Jimmy Dore as a shield? And Mike from The Humanist Report called it troubling. The only thing that is different is that Yang finally admitted that he decided to go with the name was because it was popular. And when did Bernie make the idea of Medicare for All popular and use that name? Well, there was his 2016 campaign and the bill that he wrote in Congress. And Medicare is specifically a government-funded single payer system for seniors, so it is obvious by definition that Medicare for All is just that. Yang has always called it Medicare for All, but The Humanist Report interview specifically said to Yang that Medicare for All is different from a public option, and Yang kept trying to say that he supported Medicare for All. It was only when Mike Figueredo refused to let him slither away that Yang conceded that he doesn't support Medicare for All. The real gaslighting comes from people who insist that Medicare for All and a public option are the same thing. The real gaslighting comes from saying "everybody gets it no strings attached" while people getting 125 programs that Yang refuses to list have to forfeit if they take his money. That is the gaslighting. Once again, you don't get to say words mean what you want them to mean.
1
@darrenfaber2334 There are 125 programs that people have to forfeit if they take his money. However, Yang only ever bothers to specifically list a few (TANF, SNAP, WIC, LIHEAP, housing subsidies, daycare subsidies). And, yes, people have to give something up. Yang has made it very clear that you can't get both. And "a full-time job"? Here in PA, daycare for multiple children is over $1500/month. Do you really think that applying for that is "practically a full-time job"? At a certain point, you Yang Gang bangers keep resorting to try to using words in a different way in order to try to make it sound better than it is. Because we don't know what the programs are that are either/or In the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend, there are a lot of people who might end up worse or surprised to find out that they have to choose at all. And there is also the question of how long taking the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend disqualifies someone from other benefits. You might think that you're in a place where you are better off taking the thousand, but, boom, you are expecting twins or triplets. Now, the funding model changes dramatically. Or, you might find out that the EITC is no longer available. Or maybe you went to grad school in a field that doesn't pay very well, but is vital, and you have to choose between the Student Loan Forgiveness Program and this money. And if you keep your current benefits, how long does that mean that you can't take the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend?
1
@ethologos2580 They were all single payer bills. If it's not single payer, it's not Medicare for All.
1
@Kevin Michael Yang has admitted that is what he wants to Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro.
1
@greenith "Not forced on people" and "everybody gets it no strings attached" is a logical contradiction. The same logical contradiction behind "not everyone gets Medicare for All." Yang Gang bangers don't get to make words mean what they want them to mean.
1
@greenith Yang doesn't want insurance to only provide supplementary care. Yang wants it to compete. Bernie is the one who wants to do that. You are proving the point of how dishonest it is to call something Medicare for All that isn't.
1
@greenith You are talking about supplementary insurance. This is exactly what I'm talking about with the problem of using the exact same name for something completely different.
1
@massivepassive I was being sarcastic.
1