Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Andrew Yang Angling For Biden VP" video.

They are a mixture of a cult and bots. He contradicts himself and they won't admit it.
8
@carjaune6793 1) He says that he supports Medicare for All, but he actually supports a public option. 2) Among audiences that will have more left-leaning people, he emphasizes the thousand bucks a month part, but with conservative audiences he emphasizes the whole dismantling the existing social safety net. Those are two of the biggest and most prominent areas if inconsistencies.
6
Yes, invite someone who constantly lies on the show. That will show everyone what a misunderstood genius he really is!
2
@0xLoneWolf Well, then, why not admit that it was a failure in several ways? The job numbers weren't even close, and funding and people signing up have plummeted over the years, even with the attention Venture for America got from his campaign. If he would say, "The problem was too big for a private enterprise" instead of "I create jobs," that is a different, but maybe more compelling story.
2
@carjaune6793 What does Yang lie about? 1) That his proposal is "no strings attached," when people who get any of 125 programs (that he refuses to list) have to give up what they currently get in order to get his money. That seems like a pretty big string to me. Somewhat related, he keeps saying "everybody gets it," when everybody doesn't, and his estimate for who suffers and who benefits depends on everybody getting it. 2) That Medicare for All and a public option are the same thing. 3) That companies actually pay the VAT rather than pass on the costs to consumers. 4) That he supports unions, despite the fact that he won't do anything to actually make it easier for workers to organize. 5) That he can't do anything about rent control. 6) That unions love his signature proposal because it came from Andy Stern, even though he is pretty hated in the labor movement for trying to undercut us at every turn and for his work after he left SEIU. 7) That Martin Luther king Jr. advocated what he does even though MLK never proposed an either/or version, which Milton Friedman was proposing at the time. 8) That nothing can be done about the climate. Those are the biggest ones.
1
Yang did not "endorse" Bernie. He said in an interview after the fact that he voted for Bernie. He was too busy getting his butt kissed on the TED Talk circuit to publicly support Bernie.
1
@carjaune6793 And why would his head have suddenly gotten big enough in 2017 to go straight for the top when no one had heard of him then?
1
@carjaune6793 Did he say that in a debate or a town hall? No, he said, "I created jobs." He is making the argument that Venture for America is what qualifies him to be President. I'm not talking about the occasional introspective interview that only devotees will read, I am talking about when he has the biggest audience, he talks like his life was one big success story. The only setback he ever mentions in those is not liking being a lawyer.
1
@carjaune6793 When did Bernie take the risks of Yang? Oh, maybe when he put his life, safety, and freedom on the line fighting housing segregation in Chicago.
1
I don't want an awful candidate because we didn't challenge these people and pick the best one. I will vote for the nominee, but I am not giving up my Saturdays and weeknights to try to get Biden elected.
1
@standupguy12 Except Yang refuses to provide a full list of the programs that people have to forfeit if they take his money. He has listed a few (TANF, SNAP, WIC, LIHEAP, daycare subsidies, housing subsidies). Based on what we know, there are already people who get more than $1000/month: 1) TANF in New Hampshire is over $1000. In Alaska, it is $923, and New York and California are over $700. With SNAP maxing out for two people above $350, people in those states get more on those programs alone, and they will almost certainly get LIHEAP, too. 2) Housing subsidies 3) Daycare subsidies with multiple children in daycare (and they are probably getting WIC, too) Those people pay VAT on dollar one, so they will be worse off.
1
@standupguy12 It is not $1000 per person, it is $1000 per adult. The poverty level for one person is higher. There are people who already get more than $1000, so they get nothing, they have to pay a VAT, and their rent goes up. He is making life worse for the most vulnerable in society.
1
@standupguy12 Yes, there are winners and losers in everything government does, but the losers should not be the most vulnerable in society. What does Bernie actually do for people? 1) Medicare for All so people don't have to worry about whether or not their doctors are in network and they have no point of service costs. 2) The Federal Jobs Guarantee to address the things that actually need done in society. 3) The Green New Deal and then some, which includes building millions of houses that are retrofitted, and less pollution means a healthier population. 4) Affordable housing and rent control 5) Increased Social Security including for parents who stay home with children. These are just a few of the things that Bernie offers that actually helps people that Yang doesn't. And the losers are the people who can actually afford it. And he actually pays for things with progressive taxation.
1
@standupguy12 *This offer does not apply to the poor who don't get it and have to pay more in taxes. There, I fixed it for you by putting the asterisk that Yang Gang bangers so conveniently forget. Oh, yes, the Almighty Market will reduce rental costs. Other than a depressed economy, when has the Almighty Market EVER seen an overall reduction in rent? Rent will go up, not by the full thousand, but it will go up. When it does, people won't be able to save for their down payment, and if Yang is right that there won't be any jobs left, and no one can get other benefits, you are creating a world with a few trillionaires and everyone else scraping by on $12,000/year. The reason why I can't go by what you Yang Gang bangers mean is because you support someone who is so fundamentally dishonest that I have no way of knowing whether or not you really think that or just conveniently always phrase things in a way that makes it sound more generous than it is, like your initial assertion that people have to spend $120K to lose out, even though there are people who won't see any extra money at all and now have to pay a tax.
1
@standupguy12 Oh, my God! Are you incapable of getting a basic point? The total benefits of Bernie's plan are more. Here is how, as simply as I can possibly make it: 1) Bernie is not taking any benefits away from anyone. Yang is. 2) Bernie is using a progressive tax rather than a consumption tax, meaning that people who can't work (unless they are retired and very rich) won't pay any taxes. People who can't work still need to buy things. 3) Cost savings from Medicare for All come about because you have 330MM in one pool. As the last three years have shown, private insurance will get loopholes and weakened regulation as soon as a Republican gets control. 4) I can't say for each individual, because Social Security payout is based on the individual, but the average is $250/month. 5) "Here is an affordable house or rent" is a bigger net positive than "Yes, you bought a house on low elevations, so here is a thousand bucks a month to eventually move to higher ground." The total benefits aren't even close.
1
@standupguy12 I asked about rent, and you never provided an example of rent going down. So, let's look at your argument that the freedom with 125 strings attached dividend will let people be mobile. Never mind the inherent contradiction of pimping the extended family in order to make the benefits look more generous, or moving in with friends (which only sounds like a good idea to a poor college student), yes, some people who are close to retirement will be able to move to cheaper land and retire. In my native state, a lot of people from the DC area started to realize how much cheaper the Eastern Panhandle was than the inner metro area and moved out there. End result? Yes, there was economic growth, but rent skyrocketed and homeless tripled from 1980-2005. So, when people have tried your theory, it didn't work. Your candidate opposes rent control, so rural homelessness will increase. It takes a far smaller influx of people to drive up housing costs in a down of two thousand than in a city of two million.
1
@standupguy12 It's simple math that ignores the simple truth that there are people who either get nothing or have to give up what they currently get in order to get the money, so they don't get the full thousand. The cutoff line for who benefits is still dishonest.
1
@standupguy12 Yang never says when he wants to transition, and he says Medicare for All is too disruptive. Either you are being dishonest, or you are believing contradictory things from a dishonest actor. I don't know which is which.
1