Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "EXPOSED: The Problem With Andrew Yang's 'Forward Party' | The Kyle Kulinski Show" video.

I'm sure the people from the administrations of Reagan, Bush, and Trump are definitely going to create a "fair and flourishing economy". Amazin'
2
Those corporations are way to slimy and smart & honestly the real direct problem in America. They see a 3rd party as a threat so they ensure to snip it in the bud before it can even cause an issue for their business-as-usual. Andrew Yang turned out to just be a useful idiot for them with the convictions of Hillary Clinton and Dave Rubin.
2
"More listening, less talking" - *proceeds to strawman both the Right and Left on basic policy positions
2
I remember when Yang endorsed Joe Biden because Bernie didn't adopt his UBI (neither did Biden btw and was even further from his politics) but now this guy won't even endorse it himself. Wow.
2
The fact that Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man, endorsed Yang's UBI was already a red flag on its own, but if you looked at how he funded it, you could already see how it was taking a neoliberal centrist/corporatist approach to UBI by funding it through slashing the social safety net rather than funding it through large corporations & billionaires already making all the money in America and sharing none of the wealth or even through something as simple as a .01% tax on Wall Street trades. It was basically a policy boasting wealth redistribution that didn't budge the divide of rich and poor even a millimeter.
2
Yang is honestly no different from Pete Buttigieg, the only difference is that Mayo Cheat showed his hand early and switched to being a full neoliberal corporatist still at the beginning of the Dem primary.
1
@GnomesRox It wasn't truly universal. @Unelected_Leader's point was that if you had just changed the policy so the funding for it didn't just destroy the social safety net and instead funded it through say taxes on large corporations making record profits or even a tiny .01% tax increase on Wall Street trades, it would've funded it without doing nothing to lift up people already receiving funds through the safety net. What you're doing is giving everyone $1,000 EXCEPT the people who need it the most who would have the amount offset by any benefits they were currently receiving. And honestly, it didn't matter what the semantics of the cut funding was, because even if Yang didn't state in the policy proposal that it would cut the VA or social security directly, the policy is still going down the wrong path and if it actually made it to Congress, you would've bet shit like that would be the first thing to be compromised on. If you make the route for funding initially take the right direction, you set the premise for the bill right off the bat, but instead Yang was just giving a potential chance for Republicans to do away with benefits they've been wanting to cut for decades. Even despite that though, he still crafted it as a more Libertarian UBI that funds it through abolishing food stamps and funding that already went to the people most in need, which basically meant a guy making $250,000 a year would receive more net-income from the UBI than a single mom on food stamps and receiving child benefits - how the fuck does that seem like the correct way to do UBI?
1
@jarrickhillery8664 If a person is receiving $500 a month from benefits like food stamps, disabilities or childcare, why would they NOT opt-in to Yang's program? The point is that a person making $250,000 a year would receive twice the net-income from Yang's UBI than that single mom or disabled veteran already receiving $500 a month in benefits that they'd have to drop just to receive $500 more in net-income when the doctor or lawyer is receiving the full $1,000 despite not needing it whatsoever. Does that seem morally, ethically, or even logically correct to you?
1
@GnomesRox You're not getting it. It's not about "dismantling the safety net", it's about how the UBI funds itself by dismantling the safety net, RESULTING IN a millionaire or doctor receiving a larger net-benefit or net-income from Yang's UBI than the people at the bottom receiving benefits such as a single mother or disabled veteran, etc. The problem is the RESULT. Dismantling the safety net as a part of a whole isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, the issue that matters is what you're dismantling it for and what the result of that policy would be (and who would gain the most benefit from it). Yang's UBI on its surface boasts wealth redistribution, but if all you're going to do is give a larger share of that wealth to the rich and Americans that aren't on any type of benefit, then your doing wealth redistribution that only shifts wealth upwards away from the poorest Americans. I don't know how you're not getting this. If you wanted to do a UBI that actually dealt with evenly and universally distributing wealth, then at the VERY LEAST you would offer $1,000 checks with no strings attached to the very poorest Americans, not offset the poors checks by removing their food or childcare benefits, resulting in a millionaire news anchor receiving a larger net-income from said UBI check than a single mother. That's idiotic and illogical, or just straight out of the Republican playbook.
1
@tinasmith1391 I can no longer even tell if Yang is just extremely blissfully ignorant or he actually knows what he's doing and is completely full of shit from top to bottom. I've honestly never been able to tell with Yang, but it's clear all he's doing is just making a new Democratic Party that's potentially even more corrupt cause it's bringing in key Republican goons from the Reagan, Bush and Trump admins. I'm surprised Yang even still has a gang anymore.
1
Man, I knew Yang and Tulsi were full of it back in the 2020 primary. They were saying a lot of the right things, but you just got these moments where it seemed like they didn't actually hold true convictions to their platforms. It actually fucking sucks they turned out that way for real though cause it honestly just hurts leftism in general when these people pull Dave Rubins and betray everything they stood for in 2020.
1
Not really surprising. Yang's most popular issue was his UBI and he somehow managed to construct it in a more neoliberal & right-wing Libertarian way. The fact that Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man, endorsed Yang's UBI was already a red flag on its own, but if you looked at how he funded it, you could already see how it was taking a neoliberal centrist/corporatist approach to UBI by funding it through slashing the social safety net rather than funding it through large corporations & billionaires already making all the money in America and sharing none of the wealth or even through something as simple as a .01% tax on Wall Street trades. It was basically a policy boasting wealth redistribution that didn't budge the divide of rich and poor even a millimeter.
1
When Yang first announced his Forward Party, I knew I wasn't going to support or vote for them given their poor direction, but I at least thought it'd have some positive aspects like pushing ranked choice voting. Now it appears it's just going to be a detriment and halt the progress of other third parties like the Green.
1
This isn't just disappointing, it's disgusting. It basically spells the demise for any chance of Ranked Choice voting being advocated for in the Forward Party. Most likely it will fade away now that these jackals have their claws in the party and Yang just stood back and allowed it.
1
@tyler5545 Yeah, but that's besides the point because Bernie (who, yes, is a centrist on the world stage) isn't even part of the Democratic Party and is basically an outcast and pariah by the leadership of the party. The idea that the Democrats are even close to Bernie's ideology is absolute nonsense and the Republicans run with that bullshit narrative nonstop nowadays. We know it's definitely bullshit, because if the Democrats did start acting more like Bernie, they'd actually be popular and get shit done for once or at least look like they were on the side of the working class and rural America. People hate them because they come off as elitists that tell the poor to eat cake - Bernie is the exact opposite of that and it's also why John Fetterman is winning with a 10 points lead in an election year where Republicans are at a major advantage.
1