Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Andrew Yang Hits New Low With Crypto UBI Plan" video.

He was briefly my second choice in 2019. The best way to repent is to try to warn other people from making the same mistake.
7
Yang said something similar to the former. He said people could buy a new house with $1000/month.
4
You sound like a gold enthusiast from a decade ago. A speculative bubble that lasts for a few years is hardly a proven commodity.
4
@RomaTomatoe The concept is not necessarily a bad one, but it has been used by a lot of people who want to do harmful things in its application. Yang was one of them.
4
@0xLoneWolf I'm quoting the show. Then again, I'm not the one peddling modern tulips.
4
@chrishale5213 Indeed. Any UBI (and a real one, not a libertarian Trojan horse to destroy the existing social safety net) needs to wait until societal needs are addressed first. Then, if we have anything left over, we can start looking at our UBI options.
3
Welcome aboard
3
Well, he never passed 5% in any state, so at least not many bought the hype. He was the President of the Internet. Ask President Paul how that works out.
3
What's the cash value on a Schrute buck?
3
@0xLoneWolf Oh, my dear God! I tried to give you a hint. Schrute bucks were rewards certificates in The Office. If someone says that a show is being referenced, you'd think that you'd at least have the sense to Google Schrute bucks so you can understand what people are talking about. You sound like a Yang Gang banger always trying to change the subject to UBI.
3
There is never a bottom for libertarians with a knack for generating publicity.
3
@benmidnightflame You've got to love that real world practicality behind libertarian economic thought.
2
@jessew7565 They never have an answer.
2
@estherc.5559 Why Yang has a terrible version of UBI? Because the poor and disabled had to choose between their current benefits and his plan. Because it was paid for by a regressive tax. Because he wanted to do nothing to address potential problems with UBI such as increased housing costs. Because he admitted that the money would end up back in the pockets of big business anyway, and it was a Trojan horse to get rid of the existing social safety net.
2
@estherc.5559 He told Dave Rubin that his ultimate goal was to end the existing social safety net, but he saw this as a politically palatable way to do so. Funny how when talking to lefty opponents of Yang, you Yang Gang bangers insist that he never said what he clearly did. And why is "choice a bad thing"? Because everyone else gets both/and. Why does some millionaire get every penny of a deduction for a mortgage on a mansion (which is way more than $12,000/year) while the poor and disabled have to choose? Now, why is this a bad deal to make it either/or? Imagine a single parent making $20,000/year. This parent has two small children who need daycare, or else the parent can't work at all. The average daycare subsidies in this situation far exceed what the Freedom with 125 Strings Attached Dividend has to offer. So, not only does this single parent not get a penny, but he/she now has to pay more for purchases because Yang used a VAT. And did I mention that someone with that income level is probably also getting WIC and SNAP, and possibly housing subsidies? And this response about companies not raising prices is just wishful thinking, which is what is required to make the numbers work. Funny how a guy who liked to wear a MATH pin lied about his math repeatedly.
2
@estherc.5559 Yeah, he mentioned rent control as something that he opposed in his Presidential campaign. He only supported it in his mayoral campaign because he knew that to take it away would be suicide. You sound like the Yang Gang bangers who insist that he came around on the minimum wage by the time he ran for mayor ignoring the fact that NYC already has a $15/hour minimum wage.
2
@estherc.5559 And this idea of "I'll just move" ignores that it affects housing nationwide. If there is a glut of people trying to move where housing is cheap, it will surely jump. This also ignores the fact that rent control stops protecting people the instant they move. Still to get back to the first question. If the Freedom with 125 Strings Attached Dividend is a "right of citizenship," but the poor and disabled have to give something up in order to get it, does that mean that the poor and disabled are second-class citizens? And how can you know if it's a good deal if he completely refused to provide a full list of the 125 programs?
2
@estherc.5559 The disabled would ne worse off, because they wouldn't get any more money, and they would have to pay a VAT. Not only is the charity part a total non-sequitir, but are you seriously suggesting that those who get the UBI give their money to the people who don't? Again, if you have to rely on magical thinking in order to make it feasible, you are in trouble. And 5% of all of the estimated UBI payments ($125B) is a drop in the bucket for the sick and disabled. You ignored my questions. Why is it that the rich get to keep their welfare because UBI is "a right of citizenship," but the poor and disabled don't? Are they second class citizens? And what is stopping landlords from jacking up the rent? Leases expire, and nothing will stop them from increasing it if there is no rent control (which Yang apparently only supports when it is already in place)?
2
@estherc.5559 The UBI as Yang proposed it makes the gap worse because it is paid for with regressive taxes and the most vulnerable don't get it. What would address it? How about actually dealing with societal issues rather than surrendering to the tech lords and giving people a pittance, and using actual progressive taxation?
2
Just when I thought the people who insist everyone not on board with this boondoggle is ignorant was the worst take, I was wrong.
2
@eddietheunggoyslayer3904 If you weren't trying to defend it, what were you trying to do?
2
At first, I thought you were doing a jokey quote attribution to Jesus :-P
2
@AG-ne3rh Yes, because deregulation of finance has worked so well.
2
@paddleduck5328 Thank you. A good weekend to you as well.
2
Crypto is a speculative bubble, and anything that becomes a speculative bubble is a road to ruin.
2
@ReneSalasDesign You don't understand what a speculative bubble is.
2
@oreagle4186 By definition, it is speculative. These people think that they'll get onto the next big thing, but something that people are trying to treat as an investment by definition cannot be a stable currency, and the greedy try to convince the gullible to sign up so they can build and build their own fortunes on their backs.
2
@majorlazor5058 Because it's a Ponzi scheme.
2
@hanli5416 And that is why cryptocurrency won't replace government currency. By definition, something cannot be both an investment vehicle and a currency. Yes, there is forex trading, but that is straight up gambling. Gold never really fit the definition of investment, either. At its core, an ounce of gold will always be an ounce of gold. A company can grow, and there are fundamentals that tell you what will make it happen.
1
@oncroussaint9103 It isn't oh-for.
1
People didn't keep reading past "I want to give you money."
1
@celestialbuffalo It would be if people actually kept reading instead of acting like the Bluth family and saw the serious drawbacks to it.
1
@eddietheunggoyslayer3904 Well, if we don't have money, we'll go back to the barter system. Money is like Winston Churchill's thoughts on democracy. Crypto is just nonsense.
1
Oh, no. You are giving him to much credit. The man literally called his health care proposal Medicare for All because the name was popular when it wasn't even a public option. He kept saying that "everyone gets a thousand bucks a month" when he knew that not to be true. He repeatedly lied about his true intentions. He does not mean well.
1
@ubuu7 Yang specifically said that is what he wanted to do, thus making the benefits regressive. He also wanted to use a regressive tax to pay for it. There is a lefty approach to UBI, and a right wing approach. Yang's was the latter.
1
@ephemer1125 I think you need to pay attention to what you read. The difference between a lefty UBI and a right wing UBI is what it does to existing programs. I clearly criticized Yang for proposing the latter. I have also said that societal issues need to be addressed before going forward with any sort of UBI. It is a distraction from the kind of things that we really need.
1
@ephemer1125 You clearly didn't. Robert Reich had a lefty version that was paid for by higher taxes on the rich, as did Martin Luther King. However, the ultimate problem with UBI as an overarching policy is, as was said in Jacobin, "If you make it universal, it's not going to be a basic income. If you make it a basic income, it won't be universal." The main version being proposed is the right-wing version. There is a Marxist version called salarie en vie. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean that they exist.
1
@ephemer1125 Are you stupid, or just looking for a fight? My comment was never, ever about how likely something was. The point was that UBI has different versions, and the specifics make all the difference in the world. By your logic of "realistic," the Yang version isn't going to pass either, so that would mean that there is no UBI proposal at all.
1
Yes, because the guy who used the name of Medicare for All because it was popular to describe something that wasn't even a public option and managed to take Milton Friedman's negative income and make it worse by adding a regressive tax is a good guy who's going to help Bernie over the line? Yeah. That makes sense. He didn't even bother to vote for Bernie in 2016 despite insisting that he was a supporter.
1
@milesblue638 Definitely. Man oh man, did he have an insufferable base of support. Still does.
1