Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
15
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
The center didn't get destroyed in the UK, it just underperformed compared to early expectations. You could just as well say that Hillary got destroyed in 2016, eventhough a few thousand votes might have completely changed the outcome.
The center in the UK had already been destroyed in 2015 after their coalition with the conservatives and for their entire existence the FPTP system has been hugely unfavorable to them. Just imagine Bernie running as a third candidate in the general election, he won't win, eventhough he might easily win as the democratic candidate. Yes, they lost a seat, but they gained in votes. Labour lost almost a fourth of their seats and a fourth of their vote share (11% of the total votes), they have been destroyed in this election, period.
However drawing a comparison with Bernie is indeed stupid, because there are many factors, most of which are different for Bernie (Corbyn's popularity, brexit, too unclear/difficult policies, just the circumstance of the people overall, ...). Labour's results in an election say NOTHING in regards to Bernie's/the left, not in 2017 and not now in 2019.
5
-
@waysidetimes9226 1. A family doesn't need to have their own solar panels, nor are solar panels the only source you'd want for electricity. There are other renewable sources that are much cheaper. Besides, overall the cost of electricity (purely on production) doesn't even need to go up with renewable energy.
2. electric cars are now still expensive mainly because they are low in production and still under large scale improvement. Early ICE cars were crazy expensive in the beginning too. It is predicted that within a few years electric cars will be cheaper or as expensive as ICE cars.
3. Again, a family doesn't really need batteries, it can be usefull, but not necessary. It all depends on how we manage the system. Besides an average family would have enough with less than 10k batteries, the price of which will eventually decrease and as electric car batteries need to be changed/aren't good enough anymore for car use, they still can be used for stationary applications (for example at home). Also (again depending on the system) batteries at home could save a lot in electricity cost, overtime probably even paying back the initial investment.
You are making the mistakes so many people make. If I used numbers from a hundred or maybe even just 50-60 years ago, the current lifestyle would be impossible for most families. And the speed of development has only increased since then. Basic computers cost thousand upon thousands of dollars 30 years ago, while still having only a fracture of the power.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Brigstad
New York and california combined would have 16% of the voters. Even if we add all the largest states together, you would still need at least 9 states to achieve a majority, but most of these 9 states are split between rep and dem, so obviously you'd need a lot more states to get a majority. With one person one vote, there is no specific state that matters, because the candidates need to get as many votes as possible in ALL states.
Furthermore, at this moment elections are basically decided by swing states (also maybe 9 states, sometimes more, sometimes less), how is this different from a popular vote system, other than that fewer people are in these important states now? Now you also have certain states that hold way more power in election and usually these states are targetted by candidates, while "save" states are practically ignored.
The "large states will have all power" argument isn't any better than arguments against the electoral college, because both sides can use this "states x will have more power" argument, just with different states.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@LD-tn6ff I don't you understand where the original poster got his 100% from, so let me explain.
1) the WFP said they couldn't release how the board vs members voted, because they can't/won't show how individuals voted.
2) If neither the leadership nor the membership voted for 1 candidate completely, then releasing how the board vs members voted wouldn't show how individuals voted. Because if even 1 member and 1 boardmember voted differently, we can't know which individual voted for which candidate, we can make assumptions, but this we already can do either way.
3) Thus either
a. there wasn't a 100% vote for a candidate with the members and board, in which case the reason given by the WFP for why they won't release how board vs members voted makes no sense and thus it must be an excuse to hide the fact that the board and members voted completely differently.
or
b. there was a 100% vote for one candidate among either the board or members. Because then there is an explanation for not releasing how members vs board voted makes sense. Afterall if 100% of the board voted for 1 candidate, you know how every individual on the board voted and therefor releasing the breakdown of the weighted vote would show how individuals vote.
So either WFP lies as to why they don't want to release the breakdown of the vote, or the board must have voted 100% for one candidate. Which is perfectly possible, afterall the 50+ people might have debated about which candidate they want or maybe there was some pressure form donors or what not forcing them to vote a certain way. In either case the result is that Bernie and the members most likely got stiffed by the board vote.
And again, if this isn't the case, there is no reason for the WFP to not release how the board vs members voted.
3
-
3
-
@Brigstad
Also, it’s not 1 person 1 vote bc the US isn’t a direct democracy
Most nations who have 1 person 1 vote for the presidency are representative democracies, that's what parliament (or in the US congress) is for. Ofcourse people often simplify too much, you can have one person one vote for presidency, while not having one person one vote for parliament (like with the US senate). So most nations use a mixture of election systems.
bc democracies always crash and burn
So the US is going to crash and burn, seeing you said it yourself, you are a "*democratic* republic"?
Napoleon, who invented it
What did Napoleon invent? Democracy? direct democracy? Napoleon was an enlightened despot/dictator (although he was one of the good ones in my opinion). And you do know Napoleon was more refering to parliamentary system, basically the US congress and the fact that decisions are made slowly or not at all there, while a one man dictatorship/ruler can make these decisions quickly and act?
We are a democratic republic
So are almost countries with one person one vote and a presidential system.
funny how liberals all seemingly failed civics
Funny how you said that, while completely fumbling up the actual terms and ideas behind it. But I guess it must be an American thing, since they have made these kind of mistakes so often in arguments I had with them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is much easier to price for access to a databank or price large amount of data than individual data. Therefor it will be increasingly hard to determine how much the data of an individual is worth. And further than this, how much someone data is worth can depend from person to person AND there might be a difference how much specific data of one individual is worth (for example browser history, hobby's, family situation, job, ...).
So putting a price on individual data will be increasingly hard. Too low and your data will be more easily distributed, too high and no one can get to it (and in that case platforms like facebook wouldn't let you use them anyway).
And then there is also the problem a platform like facebook will have, now they get a lot of profit from this data, however if they need to pay for it, they'll need to get money elsewhere, say bye bye free facebook, hello subscription facebook.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elijahculper5522
I think the fact that the media ignores him is evidence that he’s failing at redefining American socialism.
Except the media isn't ignoring hime because he dscribes himself a democratic socialist, but because he himself is a threat to the status which is so good for these large media companies. They don't give a damn on how Bernie paints himself.
Democrats win when they pick someone who can work the media
But during both Obama's first run and Clintons, the media was practically the only ways for many people to find out about the contestants, these days that is not the case by far. Therefor you can't just make this assumption at this time anymore, what might have worked in the past, doesn't necessarily needs to be the case now.
and it matters more and more how they are seen.
I agree, and that is why Bernie is so smart to use different outreaches, like a fox news town hall, interview with Joe Rogan, ... Bernie would never be shown favorably by the media or the establishment as long as he isn't already the democratic nominee. The only way for him to change this is be different from who he is and change his policies, which in return will take away his appeal with progressives. The problem at this moment is more that there are still too many contestants and that Biden is just coasting on his "Obama's VP" heritage. If people (especially black people) would actually look past that, a lot of people would drop him quickly and after that it would be between Bernie and Warren. Now Warren seems to be loved by the media despite having similar policies as Bernie. But this fact actually worries a lot of progressives, because there is no reason for them to love Warren, except that she might be a sell out like Obama.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'd agree with Kyle's assessment if Bernie wasn't so old. While it doesn't impact him now, a lot can change in 2-3 years, especially with what he wants to accomplish. therefore it would be better to chose someone that more closely aligns with his policies and vision (which is why I believe he'd chosen Warren a year ago, not so anymore now). Someone like Nina Turner, who also has shown that she can be an "attack dog" if she wants to (less than Tulsi, but Tulsi is ofcourse a candidate and vilified by the media, more in the spotlights), would be a better pick.
I think the voters Tulsi would bring, would be minimal compared to what Bernie already should be bringing out at this point. Especially since those republicans who'd vote for her as president, might not necessarily vote for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. You can't just add up their supporters, because their can be aversions among them towards the whole ticket. Especially among the possible supporters of the VP.
Tulsi would however be a great pick as SOD, being anti-war, a veteran and she would be the first woman to become SOD (although the last part would be of less importance ofcourse). And if they already talked with Tulsi about becoming SOD directly after the nomination, she still can be an "attack dog" for Bernie's campaign (they could just float that she'd be the most likely pick).
So, yeah, Nina Turner as VP and Tulsi as SOD would be the best at this moment in my eyes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samus598
and maybe it has on candidates who havent straight up called themselves socialists.
Bernie is called and has called himself a socialist for years (even though he is a soocial democrat), yet this hasn't hit him in the polls. He at this point does better in heads to heads against Trump than anyone else, despite everyone by now knowing his "socialist" background. So yes it has lost its strength. Especially since the younger generation identifies almost as much or more socialist than capitalist. And it is exactly this younger vote Bernie is after, since the older vote don't want progress but stability/status quo overall.
You take it for granted that a public option as a pathway to single payer will not work
It speaks for itself that a public option will not work.
First you give the insurance companies a chance to completely destroy the idea of a public option and m4a for a number of years. Even if they have to go in the red for a few years by offering too cheap plans to healthy people, they will if this means a return to "normalcy" and large profiteering after that.
Furthermore will you need to fight on healthcare one more time than necessary, that would be 3 times in 2 decades. Even if a public option works, this would entice people to just say "oh well, we have a working solution, why go further", untill it suddenly doesn't work anymore, because the big companies got their act together and decisively work on destroying it.
Thirdly, with a public option you CAN'T lower cost as much as you can as with m4a. At best you lower costs a bit. Now, could a public option work if you go from m4a to it? Yes, but in the US system today the insurance and drugcompanies have too much power to choose a public option as stepway to the real deal.
Yang supports enstating the most popular healthcare plan
No, Yangs plan isn't the most popular plan, if that were the case Bernie would not be the most trusted on healthcare by a mile.
it doesnt scare the shit out of boomers
Only few people are scared of m4a. If you just ask "do you support m4a?" 70%-80% of the US says they support it. It is only when you ask "do you support m4a if this means no more private insurance?" or something, the numbers drop to maybe half the country (still not bad). If you then rephrase it to "do you support m4a if this means no more private insurance but you can keep your doctor?" suddenly it is again up in the 60%-70%'s. m4a is the most popular plan out there, not a public option. A public option is a political compromise that will still not be supported by republicans and thus not be passed easier than m4a.
Bernie is just the best on healthcare, everything shows that, every poll. If you disagree, convince me otherwise with data.
shrinks the private insurance market dramatically
Yeah, by allowing all the sick people on medicare and the healthy with private insurers, thus putting the majority of the cost on the sick or the government. This is not a healthy way of "shrinking" the insurance market.
and sets us up for an easier transition to m4a
No, it doesn't. Which republican would support a public option, but not m4a?
Bernie wont get anything done if Trump fearmongers enough about socialism, and you have to admit Bernie is more vulnerable to that line of attack against him.
Again, no fearmongering about socialism will not work against Bernie, because that has been done for years now. We are not at the time of the cold war or right after anymore. Socialism is almost only a reason anymore to not vote for a candidate if you already lean republican. Besides, even in 2008 many Hillary supporters went to the republicans, still Obama won nicely because he energized new or disillusioned voters, just like Bernie does.
In fact Bernie is stonger against this 'socialism' attack because he comes out with it. Other candidates would be put on the defensive with such an attack and explain why they aren't socialists, Bernie just accepts the attack and starts explaining what his "socialism" means, basically the scandinavian model.
They are already running terrifying horror commercials about denied surgeries in the UK and government control over what healthcare you can receive.
And you think this kind of commercials won't be aired with a prublic option? LMOA, you must be rather naîve to think that. Furthermore, this can easily be debunked. All necessary care and operations will be given under m4a, but based on urgency. Even now surgeries that aren't necessary or too dangerous can already be denied in the US by the doctors (because it is them who decide), so nothing changes.
You need to stop focussing on the fearmongering of the republicans, they will fearmongering about everything whether it is m4a, a public option or even just strengthening Obamacare. Stop looking about what the republicans will do and focus on what matters: the actual policy and the popularity of these policies.
Support for Bernie's bill is falling
Ofcourse, it is being attacked. The same will happen with Yangs public option if he were to become the nominee. It would be attacked and the support would also drop. This is practically unavoidable at this moment. However while support has been falling, it is still the most popular option with a majority support.
"Bernies way is the only way"
I never said this and if I lived in the US and Yang was the nominee I'd vote for him, but your original statement that Yang is better than Bernie (and Warren) was just ridiculous, just as the reasons you gave. I could have agreed that his democracy dollars idea was great and should be adopted by others and the UBI would also have been fine, if it was build up in a progressive way, not a libertarian one. At this moment his UBI will be best for the middle class, but only slightly better for the lower classes. And it surpasses the original goal: dealing with automation. Jobs will be lost, 1000 isn't enough to live of decently, so you will have to find another job to live a proper life, the problem is, jobs wouldn't be available due to automation, that is the entire point of a UBI: to deal with this jobloss. A progressive UBI would be linked to income (decreasing with higher income), starting at 2000-2500 for those unemployed, but also slowly scaling down over time to a minimum of 1000 if you remain unemployed and aid at that time in finding a job.
Some of Yangs ideas show promise, but most of them aren't what the US needs at this point, maybe in future (especially a good refined UBI can be usefull in the future).
1
-
@samus598
How much does Bernie's healthcare bill cost per year?
Surprisingly less than the current system, meaning over time it will save more than it needs.
youre wrong. 60% oppose when you tell them it removes private insurance.
I haven't seen this poll, could you post the link here?
In the end people against m4a have done research, find out why people might not support it and then spread lies that m4a would exactly cause what people fear. In polls about m4a the way you word it is important. In the same poll, it was phrased in the same 3 ways I said, with these outcomes, so the same people voted differently on this, while the poll was always talking about the same plan. Perception is important.
The same btw happens in regard to a public option, the worse you represent it (while still being true, just deceptive also), the more the support for it lowers. At worst/best the support for m4a and a public option at this moment are around the same and will be equally difficult to implement, so why go for the worse of the two? I'll tell you why, because the media and other large interests don't favour m4a, so politicians switch to a public option as appeasement (or just to seperate them from progressives) or in some cases to link themselves to the previous administation under Obama (for example Biden).
Your argument that public option cannot work is straight up false. Australia has one of the best systems and it has private insurance alongside a public option.
Sure it can work, if it there isn't already a powerfull healthcare industry that only profits from destroying it AND that basically can legally buy politicians. For a public option in the US to work, first you'd have to fix many problems in the US political system, which on its own is an entire nearly impossible battle.
Furthermore, in Australia the public side is paid for by taxes. In the US the public option would basically be the government stepping into the private market. It would be funded similarly to how the insurance companies are funded. People opting for the public option pay into it, others not. At best some money will come from the government. But seeing that candidates supporting a public option show the raising of taxes in m4a as an argument against m4a, clearly they are not going to raise taxes. That is a major difference, the way it is funded in the US vs Australia. And why it works in Australia, but won't work in the US.
Yang is rapidly gaining on Bernie in head to heads.
could you give me some polls to show this? The ones I find don't really show this. Sure Yang is still unknown, the question is, will this change in the next 2 months? If he doesn't gain 15% in Iowa, how is he going to increase his name recognition? In any early state at this moment Yangs best polling is 5%, he needs to at least triple this within the next 2 months, otherwise he won't gain any delegates, completely destroying any changes he had. At this moment I honestly think he's still staying in just to spread his ideas, maybe laying a path for a future run. Unless something really changes, Yang doesn't have chance of winning the primary, but I guess we'll see. It is best he remains in untill at least Iowa or after the 4 early states and decide what to do then. If he can't get any delegates by that point, he is better of endorsing another candidate, maybe even making a deal. I am sure Bernie would see merit in something like his democracy dollars.
Yang doesnt have full name recognition yet while Bernie has been a known public figure for 40 years
Bernie had barely any name recognition outside Vermont before the 2016 election. It is only because then he started to make a real national name. In fact if he had the name recognition then that he had today, he'd probably have won the primary back then. Even though you are correct, it is irrelevant, unless Yang suddenly increases his name recognition dramatically, he won't win the primary and thus also not the general.
I guess we'll see how it goes in february.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahculper5522
So I created a long in depth response 2 days ago and then youtube wouldn't load it up (kept on the loading icon) and I couldn't copy paste it anymore either, so I created a new answer.
But there is absolutely no precedent to back that up.
In 2016 Trump got much coverage from the media, so he couldn't set a precedent, and earlier elections were too early. There always has to be a first time.
Senator Sanders is asking the Democratic Party to take a huge gamble by throwing away one of their most valuable tools against Donald Trump.
In the general the democratic nominee will get enough media coverage, especially when running against Trump, don't worry.
There are a field of candidates who would have the media fawning over them throughout their campaign. Senators Warren and Harris, Secretary Castro, Mayor Buttigieg, and Congressman O’Rourke all come to mind here.
Yes, and look where they are now.
Harris has fallen back completely, even not getting any delegates in her homestate and even surpasse by Yang, someone who gets even less coverage than Bernie.
Castro has difficulty to poll higher than 2-3%, despite being covered well by the msm. Clearly this msm coverage didn't help him too great either.
Buttigieg and O'Rourke the same as Harris, despite being msm favorites, they have fallen back from earlier positions spectacularly, often not even beating Yang in the polls.
And as for Warren, msm only started seeing her as a favorite after she already was well into the double digits, so I can't say that she for now really was helped by them. Especially since many progressives have only become suspicious of her now that msm covers her so very favorably.
If any of those candidates were the nominee, they’d run with the advantage of traditional media making their case to every suburban swing voter with cable or a newspaper subscription.
msm is already mostly partisanised, they'll cover every DNC nominee a lot, especially since of they don't they'll risk losing out, we are talking about the primary with only 2 candidates.
*But all of those voting blocs are notoriously flakey. Even if they like a candidate, they are substantially less likely to show up to vote than the upper-middle class middle aged suburbanites watching CNN and reading the New York Times. *
This is indeed true if you look to the past, then again many of those were not engaged by former candidates like they are now by Bernie. Furthermore the young voter turn out has gone up incredibly in 2018, almost doubled compared to 2014. And if we look at young voter turn out, what do we see? When the young voters come out, democrats win. Both in 1992 and 2008 the young turn out was above 50%, the only times that it was higher than 50% in 40 years. So clearly if you want to be certain of a victory, you need to get out the young vote.
I don’t think the media is particularly attached to the status quo. I really can’t think of a bigger shakeup to the old way of doing things than the candidacy and presidency of Mr. Trump. That’s been fantastic for traditional media outlets. They have more viewers and sell more papers than ever before.
That is correct, this change (but actually just more Trump) has been great for their viewcount, however what you shouldn't forget is that behind these news companies you have large companies and donors who do like the status quo. After all, the status quo got them in power and made them able to influence/buy these msm outlets.
Most Sanders speeches sound kind of like an angry political science professor lecturing us on the economic systems of the Nordic states.
People are constantly trying yo equate his ideas with countries like Venezuela, so ofcourse he's going to correct them and furthermore, what is wrong to use an example that has proven his ideas work?
His events are policy driven and boring, which doesn’t do anything for profit-motivated outlets.
This isn't different from Warren, yet you told yourself she's an msm darling.
He’s spent a career building trust with voters.
LMAO. Go outside and ask Biden supporters why they support him. You'll hear things like "electability", unity, defeating Trump, Obama, ... You'll only rarely hear things from his actual record. This trust people have with Biden is because of the image that Obama trusted him and that he was Obama's pall. If people support him based on his career, he wouldn't get a sliver of the african-american vote. The only reason he has the african-american vote is him being associated with Obama, the same happened with Hillary. If Obama comes out tomorrow and endorses someone else then Biden, his support would be gone in a weak definitely from the African-American voters.
This is his third time running for president, so he’s spent more time in early primary states than anybody else in the field.
Hillary spend two elections with her husband and also ran in 2008 and nearly defeat Obama in the primaries. Joe biden dropped out early in 1988 and in 2008 he dropped out in January after getting less than 1% in Iowa. It doesn't seem that running multiple times seriously helps. Furthermore, while Biden ran two times before, Bernie could just continue his 2016 campaign, which in my eyes is much better than running three campaigns with at least 10 years inbetween every campaign.
He’s built relationships with democratic volunteers in those states
And Bernie got a million volunteers from all states in just 6 days. I don't think Biden can trump Bernie in volunteers.
and he’s been listening to what voters have to say in those town halls for decades.
That is probably one of the worst arguments so far. What is said in 1988 is far from what is being said now. If runs based on what is said back then, he'd not even be in the running.
But it’s because he spent 2008 to 2016 connecting with voters and establishing himself as an ally to the black community.
And this was only possible because he was Obama's VP.
And Biden’s just better at retail politics than anyone else in the field.
Really? We are talking about the same person, right? The guy that has twice as few events, meetings and interview than other candidates. The guy that before his VP-ship couldn't get more than a few % nationally (and in most states) and this time (coïncidently after his VP-ship) got in the 30's even before announcing or campaigning.
I’ve seen a ton of progressives on the internet express a lot of mistrust toward Warren. I don’t really understand that. The two seem virtually identical to me on policy.
It's quite easy, she was first a republican and in 2016 she supported Hillary instead of Bernie, a fellow progressive. She doesn't speak out against the military industrial complex, she is definitely not good on foreign policy, she's having meetings with the DNC establishment, she said she was going to accept money from everywhere in the general. Many believe she might cave much more easily to political pressure once president compared to Bernie and they fear Trump will eat her alive or that she will become Obama 2.0, many promises, but not much done or not fighting enough to change things as promised during the primaries.
Progressives were really dissapointed with Obama's presidency and don't want this dissapointment repeated. And the msm suddenly seeing her as one of their favorites only increased the fear with progressives that they are right and that she'll prove to be a sell out, a hidden status quo candidate.
On the other hand, Bernie has proven throughout his entire career to stand by his policies and principles, that he is steadfast and will truly fight to improve the lives of ordinary people.
Honestly from you comment, I can clearly see that you are in what progressives cal the msm/dnc/establishment bubble. And thinking like you do is exactly what lost the democrats 1000 seats and the 2016 election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@varkenshaasje4014
there is not enough space for solar and wind in most countries
There is plenty of space for these energy sources, maybe not everywhere, but then you just place it a x miles further. You can't put a nuclear powerplant in the middle of a large city either. Just a small space of the sahara filled with solar power (which in this case isn't panels, but rather mirrors and heat) could power the entire world. Main problem is the transer and storage of the electricity provided.
they are ugly
Subjective personal opinion, I don't think they are ugly, on the contrary I like seeing them. Ofcourse you don't need to place it on every piece of nature. But again ugliness is a personal opinion.
kill animals
And so do so many other things. Even nuclear probably causes a lot of animal deaths, just not as visible.
destroys the sea
How exactly does it get "destroyed". The impact of them on the sea is much less than fishing, sailing and just general waste.
landfills with toxic waste worse then nuclear waste
Some sources, maybe. But wind energy doesn't, and several solar powered plants neither.
Germany example, really? Germany has actually reduced its coal power production. Germany always was a country heaviliy reliant on coal. Half of Germany's nuclear power is still running. Much more energy from renewable energy has been created than the loss of nuclear power.
they get subsidised a lot in europe.
Like many other emerging sectors. Besides these subsidies are lowered year after year and might in many cases already be negligable or non existent for new projects.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincestithit381
Now you are just talking shit, people don't keep themselves poor because of government programs, but rather because they can't get out of poverty (for example by not finding a decent paying jobs). UBI isn't going to do uch more than these government programs for people in poverty, they'll still need other income or remain living in poverty. At this moment US poverty line is just below 12k (although with VAT price increase, this most likely will go up a bit). The only difference is that they get this UBI also after finding a job, however it certainly doesn't help finding a job, there are just no strings attached. If you really want to incentivize people in poverty to get a job, you'd do better by lowering (or just eliminating) income tax for every income under a certain amount (eg. 15k) and strengthening the programs so that everyone who remains under the poverty line with a job, still keeps these programs.
UBI is also just a program, just one with no strings attached. In the end the UBI as is, is a middle class program, not so much for the poorest in society.
And Gwolf is completely right, a left UBI mixed with welfare programs would be great and definitely much better than Yang's current UBI proposal.
It is really simple, at this moment if you are in the middle class, Yang might be as good as (or even better than) Bernie for you, however if you are in the lower working classes, Bernie is infinitely better.
So at this moment choosing Bernie over Yang is overall better. The even better thing would be to push Bernie to look into a leftist UBI which might scale more with income or something and harmonisation with existing welfare programs for those who need it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1