Comments by "sharper68" (@sharper68) on "Cenk And Ana: You Can’t Control Us" video.

@levenchen1782 SS is not SSI … please catch up.
2
Both have had positive and negative coverage. It is an empty assertion that Warren is being treated with kid gloves or real issues with Tulsi are smears. I support neither of these candidates and do not see their coverage of them as unfair or biased or whatever you assert the fault is. Gabbard after her weak sauce interview deal killer with Rubin deserves all the criticism she gets. Personally I am happy they were ahead of the curve in picking out faults early.
1
@jameswatson9338 It is empty because they have plenty of critical coverage of her as well. It is empty to say they favor her. That is judgment call you make while ignoring what they actually say that does not match your narrative.
1
@jameswatson9338 Warrens coverage is largely positive and earlier on so was Tulsi's. The issues with Tulsi stacked up as time and I have seen nothing unfair about her. She was a top contender for me early on and has lost luster the longer she was in the spot light chasing voters who are not me. I have seen warrens coverage as more positive than I would choose as well but not enough to indict them. Nothing they shared was incorrect or misrepresented her either. She is a better second choice than Tulsi but because of things reported on t his network she has been written off by a majority of us. The actual warren supporters are few and far between and a certain percentage of those are just trolls stirring up gripe.
1
VAT is a wholly regressive tax that gets directly passed onto consumers. I do not like taxing the poor of the money they will get from this program to pay for the program. We have innately better ways to fund this and the money should come from those at the top who have been getting exponentially richer while their taxes were cut for 30 years. We need to close loopholes that allow corps that make billions in profit to pay no tax. We need to transaction taxes on high volume trades. We need to enact wealth taxes so those pooling massive amounts of wealth give some back to the community. There are good implementations of UBI I just do not see Yangs version as one of them.
1
Bullshit, her chief problems with Yangs ubi is how it is regressively funded and what it means to those in most of need of critical individually expensive social programs which will be even more quickly defunded than they are now once UBI is in place. The concern trolling of details barely attached to her main concern seems a very strange focus.
1
That you pull out a single element of what they said which is not the entity of the point makes you look dishonest or that you are scrabbling for arguments. There are numerous other complaints in the same piece and that people like you hone in on a detail which does not change anything in the tenor of the concern is silly and poorly thought out. You are free to counter the rest of what she said yet all I see is this very very very focused complaint.
1
@jesseeros1 That is a single misstatement that if incorrect that does not undermine the root of her concern. I am far less worried about it than the trolls who pretend it is smear or they are in the tank for the establishment..
1
@jesseeros1 Actually she said it does not stack with SSI .. which is not SS. Please check your facts. This is a troll talking point picked up by sadly misinformed otherwise sane people.
1
@jesseeros1 I did not hear that but I will take your word for it because it seems you are far far more concerned about this than I am. The fact is if this is the bit of minutia that turns anyone off on Yang I will be deeply shocked. The objection you make does not undermine the root of her concern. I did not see her saying he was going to gut SS but the fact is we can expect already cut happy states to put cuts in over drive if it yang's "freedom dividend" is ever passed. That is the root of anna's valid concern and it is not addressed by anyone with your point.
1
@jesseeros1 There are plenty of good arguments for "freedom dollars" but they do not address innate problems that undermine it as a total replacement for key services required by those who need them the most. Many services covered for the poor and disabled are not covered by the cost of UBI. This makes them reliant on existing systems which we can expect to be even more poorly funded going forward. It is a path that will directly undermine the quality and value of already bare bones services. Buying on the public market is no guarantee of low cost and our insurance market is proof. All public versions of the for profit insurance networks work at far less over head. Because of the economy of scale and a lack of a profit motive some specialized services provided by a public system are not affordably delivered in a small market for profit system. I like UBI as a rule and think it is policy we will have to eventually embrace. I do not like how Yang's version is regressively funded. Nor do I appreciate it is a way to fast track the butchering of our social safety net which supports the most needy. There is a cross section of people for whom a $1000 is not nearly enough to pay for what they need on the free market. They will be forced into a terrible system already facing cut backs before UBI which will ensure it gets even worse. There is zero upside for the most needy in this plan and personally I would like it to help them most.
1