Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Andrew Yang Blows It BIG TIME, Confronted In Streets" video.

  1.  @angryretailbanker5103  The irony is that he is really bad on that one main thing that he cares about.
    1
  2.  @dabblerdeluxe775  There is a left-wing UBI and a right-wing UBI. The difference? Lefties want to use UBI to supplement the existing social safety net (with the possible exception of TANF), and right wingers want to use it to get rid of it. Yang might have invoked Martin Luther King, but his plan was Milton Friedman.
    1
  3.  @davidfaustino4476  Why would you need other programs? "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 of they want any life that motivates them." Andrew Yang to Ben Shapiro when answering why he wouldn't increase the amount of the Freedom with 125 Strings Attached Dividend (emphasis his) Yang also said that his plan was "a right of citizenship" when asked why the rich should get theirs. So, does he see the poor and disabled as second-class citizens?
    1
  4.  @ravendawnhead97  Yang doesn't just want to cut SSI and SNAP. He wants to cut a total of 125 programs, but he has only listed seven that he didn't walk back because they were politically unfeasible: TANF, SNAP, WIC, SSI, LIHEAP, daycare subsidies, and housing subsidies. Just to use an example about people "not needing it," imagine a single parent making $20,000/year. That parent has two young children. Daycare for two children is well over $1000/month, so either that person will have to give up the benefits that make his/her job possible (and someone at that income level is almost certainly also on SNAP and WIC), or get nothing and have to pay an extra 10% on everything that Yang doesn't deem essential. And your talk about making it more generous and including children is rebutted by Yang himself who told Ben Shapiro that he wouldn't increase it because the "magic of a thousand bucks a month is that it is below the poverty level for one person, so people would need to work in order to have any life that motivates them" (emphasis his). He doesn't want a more expensive program. He wants to destroy the existing social safety net. There will always be poor and disabled people, and there will always be frictional unemployment. Ignoring that is totally callous.
    1