Fair enough, I wish you the best I'mItypically Republican voter, but this thread isn't about arguing politics. I really wanted it to be where we could discuss things without all of the contempt.
Says Yang. Goal is about $2 trillion. Andrew Yang: Paying for a Universal Basic Income Dur:7:14. 4:25: Generate 7-800 Billion dollars. ?:$500 billion from somewhere. 5:03: Cut costs by reducing the funds spent on Government services. 6:21: Remove dysfunction and save a few hundred billion.
Says who? And there were 252,000,000 over the age of 18 in 2017. Your $800B number would only mean a UBI of $3174.60 annually, it would take 4 times that amount. And it is to be on top of current income which means on top of SS. Where does he get the idea $800B will provide a $1,000 per month UBI to every adult, whose numbers is he using since he had a HUGE shortfall? He offers very vague canards.
How would we pay for Universal Basic Income? https://www.yang2020.com/blog/ubi_faqs/pay-universal-basic-income/
Lots of unsupported conjecture and assumptions. And that is even if he could get the Congress to pass it AND a guarantied income. And then you give people money and then tax it back with the regressive VAT tax with it's huge compliance cost and entirely new mechanism it would require. What about persons getting say $15,000 in total government subsistence payments and they choose not to take the $12,000 but now have to pay a 10% VAT on everything they buy?
The VAT could be possibly curbed because Yang is one of the democratic presidential candidates that supports universal healthcare. Everyone gets it, so that eliminates the what-if of healthcare costs. Therefore everyone has to worry less about money.
A lot of money is made by big tech companies who offer "free" access to their services. Can you imagine let's say Facebook charging $3.50/month to access their site??? They'd loose a lot of users.
Except someone else if $1,000 a month poorer, again where does the money come from? A VAT tax? Who pays the VAT tax? This is not "income" it is a wealth transfer scheme which never helps the economy.
Because the negative nature of the Constitution is what protects you FROM government. If the government has undefined and unlimited power to act for you, it would also have undefined and unlimited power to act against you. The genius of the Constitution is that it establishes our FedGov and gives it specific "enumerated powers". So, if the Constitution does not specifically empower the FedGov to do something, be it deemed positive or negative, it simply cannot do it. If the people think something is of such a positive good and a proper function of government, but it is not authorized by the Constitution, they can amend the Constitution. My guess is that most people would hold such a view of Social Security. Social Security is wholly unconstitutional; but, b/c the people who wield the power of government have no interest in abiding by the Constitution, and the people themselves have been deceived into thinking it is a good thing, everyone turns a blind eye. It is a very dangerous thing.
We are a nation of laws and they are fine. We don't have to amend the Constitution for every little thing. A good law will suffice. Can you imagine the Constitution with hundreds of thousands of amendments that is a giant boondoggle that no one really understands???
Sounds like what the Democrats are doing to California. Every year the Democrat state legislature passes almost 1,000 new laws.
Laws, laws... But one of the reasons I like the Yang platform is that he wants to expire old laws. Automatically Sunset Old Laws https://www.yang2020.com/policies/automatically-sunsetting-old-laws/
The California state legislature should spend the next six years removing the thousands of laws that were passed by the legislature that made California one of the states at the bottom when it comes to personal freedoms.
Here is a look at the other side of the coin. Andrew Yang’s Math Doesn’t Add Up on Universal Basic Income https://fee.org/articles/andrew-yang-s-math-doesn-t-add-up-on-universal-basic-income/
What you've just described there is the opposite of the rule of law. Firstly, "hundreds of thousands" of laws"?? Really?? Who would ever want to live in a country where there were "hundreds of thousands of laws"?? If you live in such a country, you live in a country that has, in fact, abandoned the rule of law; and, it's citizens are subject to the passions and whims of its ruling elite and the majority. That isn't liberty; that isn't republican government; that isn't stable; that isn't sustainable. America was founded on understanding and rejecting those very things. What you've described can be found in every authoritarian system throughout history. Be it communist, fascist, socialist, or democratic. America is about freedom and liberty first and foremost. That can only exist when the government is tightly bound by the rule of law. What you've written above is in no way consistent with republican government.
Good write up - The Gadarene stampede to (and over) the edge of the abyss of all who advocate open borders, 70 percent income taxes, the green terror, socialized medicine, legalized infanticide, reparations to native and African-Americans, packing the Supreme Court, and vacation of the Electoral College, has finally elicited, in a Churchillian expression, a tiny mouse of dissent. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has kept her head screwed on in policy terms but shows no sign of stirring the voters: Walter Mondale in drag. Pete Buttigieg, he only seems to subscribe to the climate change fantasy and socialized medicine, though he is also an enthusiast of the putrid corpse of organized labor (now almost confined to public-sector unions). America is not going to elevate to the White House a 37-year-old gay mayor of a city of 102,000 people. https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/03/democrats-in-2020-unelectable-nonentities/
