• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Yang have the answer to avoiding the imminent recession???

GDViking

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
20,025
Reaction score
12,035
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
We have tried trickle down economics since Reagan.

Yang wants to try trickle up for a change.

By priming the economic pump will it avoid the upcoming recession???
 
Yes, a Universal Basic Income as Yang proposes intrinsically stimulates the economy, because the lower and middle classes have more money to spend on food and goods. Trickle-down is the preposterous notion that if you give the ultra rich more money it will somehow stimulate the economy, when in reality they'll spend it on large houses, yachts and luxury items while hoarding the rest in tax havens off shore. When you give the working class people of America more money, they spend it immediately and in their own communities on a wide variety of everyday goods.

We've tried trickle-down economics for decades and it's only made things worse and the people poorer and more desperate. It's time to give trickle-up a chance.
 
Yang's UBI idea has some merit but the devil is in the details. Why does it start at age 18 and end at age 64? Who, exactly must pay for it, and why only those (carefully selected?) entities? Is it instead of or in addition to current "safety net" programs?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, a Universal Basic Income as Yang proposes intrinsically stimulates the economy, because the lower and middle classes have more money to spend on food and goods. Trickle-down is the preposterous notion that if you give the ultra rich more money it will somehow stimulate the economy, when in reality they'll spend it on large houses, yachts and luxury items while hoarding the rest in tax havens off shore. When you give the working class people of America more money, they spend it immediately and in their own communities on a wide variety of everyday goods.

We've tried trickle-down economics for decades and it's only made things worse and the people poorer and more desperate. It's time to give trickle-up a chance.
Click to expand...

I agree and another bonus that just recently accused to me would be how many of the homeless would be able to get homes...
 
GDViking said:
We have tried trickle down economics since Reagan.

Yang wants to try trickle up for a change.

By priming the economic pump will it avoid the upcoming recession???
Click to expand...

Upcoming recession!!!!!!!!!

Top 2 liberal prayers to the flying spaghetti monster:

1) Economic collapse

2) World War III

But yeah, Yang is the only guy who gets what's REALLY happening with the economy in terms of automation and the inevitable necessity of UBI.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, a Universal Basic Income as Yang proposes intrinsically stimulates the economy, because the lower and middle classes have more money to spend on food and goods. Trickle-down is the preposterous notion that if you give the ultra rich more money it will somehow stimulate the economy, when in reality they'll spend it on large houses, yachts and luxury items while hoarding the rest in tax havens off shore. When you give the working class people of America more money, they spend it immediately and in their own communities on a wide variety of everyday goods.

We've tried trickle-down economics for decades and it's only made things worse and the people poorer and more desperate. It's time to give trickle-up a chance.
Click to expand...

Is there some reason that the UBI (or trickle-up) idea can't be done at the state government level? Do these "ultra rich" sources of (added) taxation not also reside in a state?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yang's UBI idea has some merit but the devil is in the details. Why does it start at age 18 and end at age 64? Who, exactly must pay for it, and why only those (carefully selected?) entities? Is it instead of or in addition to current "safety net" programs?
Click to expand...

Well it would eliminate many people from eligibility for many programs such as food stamps.
At first I thought that would hurt farmers as food stamps are in reality a farm subsidy, however after further thought, people will still buy food.

The way to pay for it would be to tax companies like Amazon that pay no taxes.

It will not hurt their overhead in the long run as a lot of that money will be coming back their way.

The good thing would be the money will be circulating in the economy, rather than stagnating in offshore accounts...

The more I look at his plan the more I like it.

The only downside I see is that people will think of it as SOCIALISM:eek::eek::eek:
 
People only truly appreciate that which they EARN.

Not saying UBI is a bad idea, because its not. But if people are being paid, then they need to be doing more than just existing to earn it. Hospitals and assisted living establishments always welcome volunteer help, even if its just to play cards with patients. Roads always need cleaning, snow needs shoveled, grass needs mowed.
 
GDViking said:
I agree and another bonus that just recently accused to me would be how many of the homeless would be able to get homes...
Click to expand...

...or simply more booze and/or drugs.
 
KevinKohler said:
People only truly appreciate that which they EARN.

Not saying UBI is a bad idea, because its not. But if people are being paid, then they need to be doing more than just existing to earn it. Hospitals and assisted living establishments always welcome volunteer help, even if its just to play cards with patients. Roads always need cleaning, snow needs shoveled, grass needs mowed.
Click to expand...

Yang's assertion is that robots will do ever more of that type of work.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is there some reason that the UBI (or trickle-up) idea can't be done at the state government level? Do these "ultra rich" sources of (added) taxation not also reside in a state?
Click to expand...

Well Alaska already does it at a smaller level.

But the reason it could not be done state by state is that the cooperations that would be taxed to cover it could not be done on a state by state level.
 
GDViking said:
Well it would eliminate many people from eligibility for many programs such as food stamps.
At first I thought that would hurt farmers as food stamps are in reality a farm subsidy, however after further thought, people will still buy food.

The way to pay for it would be to tax companies like Amazon that pay no taxes.

It will not hurt their overhead in the long run as a lot of that money will be coming back their way.

The good thing would be the money will be circulating in the economy, rather than stagnating in offshore accounts...

The more I look at his plan the more I like it.

The only downside I see is that people will think of it as SOCIALISM:eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

You addressed only a tiny bit of my concerns. Why should a 64 year old get $1K/month in Yang cash but then have to live on less than that in Social Security (SS) benefits upon turning 65 (or in some cases $0/month until they turn 66 or 67 or opt for a reduced SS benefit)? The general idea is not that bad, but (as with any law) the devil is in those details.

BTW, what makes Amazon so different as a business model from Walmart or The Family Handyman Magazine (owned by whatever corporation)?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yang's assertion is that robots will do ever more of that type of work.
Click to expand...

Jon Deere has self driving combines about to hit the market.

Self driving lawn mowers can not be far behind...
 
GDViking said:
Well Alaska already does it at a smaller level.

But the reason it could not be done state by state is that the cooperations that would be taxed to cover it could not be done on a state by state level.
Click to expand...

Yep, the "extra" revenue would be limited to those "deepest pocket" entities in that state but that is so now in Alaska.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You addressed only a tiny bit of my concerns. Why should a 64 year old get $1K/month in Yang cash but then have to live on less than that in Social Security (SS) benefits upon turning 65 (or in some cases $0/month until they turn 66 or 67 or opt for a reduced SS benefit)? The general idea is not that bad, but (as with any law) the devil is in those details.

BTW, what makes Amazon so different as a business model from Walmart or The Family Handyman Magazine (owned by whatever corporation)?
Click to expand...

Well to be honest I have to really looked Into the details, I started this thread .mostly to see the pros and cons of his proposals.

Amazon was just an example...
 
GDViking said:
That would certainly happen with some.

Hell I know I would drink more Sierra Nevada, and less natti ice...:2razz:
Click to expand...

Yep, but not waste that recreational drug money on a (better) apartment. ;)
 
GDViking said:
Well to be honest I have to really looked Into the details, I started this thread .mostly to see the pros and cons of his proposals.

Amazon was just an example...
Click to expand...

Those "details" are what public policy is about. Of course, the final version of Yang cash is totally in the hands of congress critters so it could be far different than any Yang campaign promise.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but not waste that recreational drug money on a (better) apartment. ;)
Click to expand...


I live in a trailer on top of a ridge within walking distance (downhill) of the upper Mississippi river with no other house in sight, tbere is no better...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Those "details" are what public policy is about. Of course, the final version of Yang cash is totally in the hands of congress critters so it could be far different than any Yang campaign promise.
Click to expand...

Very true, but I have to admit it is an intriguing plan...
 
GDViking said:
Very true, but I have to admit it is an intriguing plan...
Click to expand...

Yep, but so are many campaign promises - the problem is that congress critters (heavily influenced, if not outright controlled, by campaign cash providers) write the laws.
 
GDViking said:
We have tried trickle down economics since Reagan.

Yang wants to try trickle up for a change.

By priming the economic pump will it avoid the upcoming recession???
Click to expand...

I don't know, but of course it would help.
 
GDViking said:
We have tried trickle down economics since Reagan.

Yang wants to try trickle up for a change.

By priming the economic pump will it avoid the upcoming recession???
Click to expand...
They should pilot it in a few different places to see what happens. We dont need to be trying to roll out massive untested changes across the country all at once.

One concern I have about the UBI is that some of the money will end up being used and/or leaving our economy in less than ideal ways. For instance, in places where marijuana hasnt been legalized, I'd bet a not insignificant percent of the ubi will go to the shadow economy and perhaps even leave the country to fund criminal drug organizations. More will go to alcohol and other addictive substances, even fast food binging.

For the vision to come to pass, the money needs to be spent on valuable goods, services, and experiences and it needs to circulate amongst the community. Theres no guarantee that's how it will go down.

There are people out there dropping thousands of dollars on pay to win phone gaming and it is just absurd. How much of the ubi will go to that or gambling? How do you control where it goes and would it be worth doing if you had to try to have those tight controls? Are foreign entities watching and formulating ways to capture as much of the ubi spending as possible?

Trickle down has some similar and different problems. I dont think either route up or down is ideal. Policy should move from trickle down to more of a balanced position. Trickle down is certainly a terrible policy. Concentrating wealth is an ever self fulfilling prophecy that is leqding us back to a duality of nobility vs serfdom.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is there some reason that the UBI (or trickle-up) idea can't be done at the state government level? Do these "ultra rich" sources of (added) taxation not also reside in a state?
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters, but saying "leave it up to the states" in America often means not doing it at all. Not everybody is able to see the big picture and the serious social and economic issues we're going to have if we don't do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom