Jump to content

Andrew Yang discussion.


Recommended Posts

Interesting guy. He brings some strong arguments to the table overall, though i have some major disagreements with his plans for UBI due to what i know of the concept and the limitations implementing it.


a quick discussion segment between him and joe rogan, where he discusses the jobs problem and one of the reasons trump won in 2016:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv-_GrilTa8




[spoiler=My thoughts]

He seems Like a very down to earth kinda guy, his ability to speak without being blinded by TDS is gonna be a major attracting point for moderates during the primaries, and may well be something that gives him an edge over even trump on the national stage. then again, trump, for all the brass balls he brings with him, is actually rather respectful to those who don't throw unneccecary shade at him, so we may see here, the only candidate that trump will be willing to face head on, with actual respect instead of sarcastic mockery. in either case, assuming he doesn't get cheated out of the primaries the way bernie, ron paul, and countless others have by the mainstream party lines, we will likely see him sweep through them like a janitor in a bathroom.


As for my own objections to him, My largest point of caution is that he's overly optimistic when it comes to his plans for the UBI. This is essentially a cornerstone of his entire ideal. It comes with some massie problems though. At an estimate, over 50 million people would likely take up the offer, going solely by the stats on people already using government assistance. His plan seems to be 1000 per person, this totals to 25 billion dollars a month. that is literally the lower end cost of a border wall, every month. 300 billion a year overall. The first issue here, is how he plans to put something that expensive through the system. as we all painstaking know by now, congress is absolutely willing to dig in its' heels to deny any upstart programs, and something like UBI is, arguably as upstart as a wall will ever be. so there's the first hurdle, and to be fair, i can't fault him on that, because he's not the one actually at fault for their reluctance.


What i can fault him on though, is his use of the term UBI. put simply, the term implies that it is in fact, applied evenly across the board.  and if that is the case, then it brings up a problem that i will address in a minute, but first, how exactly is he thinking of funding this? the current amount of money spent on government assistance is 462 billion yearly is the general estimate that's spent already, this would, if anything, increase that load, as it would elevate many payouts to 1000, even as it lowered higher payouts to the same level. the current system has more than enough weight to carry, how exactly would he propose funding this in full? 


Which brings me to that other thing that i hinted at earlier. All these numbers are the smallest estimate i could make, going solely off of the people already using government assistance, or similar programs, and not factoring in the rest. The rest is exactly where those devilish details lie. See, people are going to lose jobs down the line, his prediction of automation is something we all can see coming pretty clearly, even were he to have said nothing. When it comes down to it, for however long it takes for the waves to settle, that will be even less tax revenue going into the government for these kinds of programs. At even a conservative estimate, at least 20 million more people would desire to enter the the UBI program, and that would be another 240 billion a year. So the question becomes, when the people who lose their jobs, and even the people who didn't lose their jobs, but still wish to partake in the funds of the UBI as would be their right, as taxpaying citizens come forth with their hands out as well, with what funds, and from where, will the then weakened government be able to pay them? Who will it be able to turn away? On what grounds will it have the right to deny anybody a UBI, especially if those it attempts to turn away actually pay taxes into the system? This entire premise would require yet another complete overhaul of the tax system, this time to allocate or more importantly, fund, the program he wishes to put into place.


The rest of his plan may sound hunky dory, and his predictions are indeed rather spot on, but without this cornerstone idea, the entire building loses balance. As such, the main questions need to be asked of the UBI, to ensure that it is an actually valid solution, and not a simple smoke and mirrors trick. 



My next gripe is foreign policy. Now i'm not actually for or against him here, but I believe he may not be skilled enough just yet to forge agreements with other countries that don't leave the U.S. hanging. He may be determined to get us a good deal, but is he adept enough to actually get anything completed properly, or will he be a less embarrassing, but equally ineffective version of Justin Trudeau? Korea is also a factor. A power change now, assuming the talks don't finish soon, could damage the talks with north Korea on disarmament. we seem to be rather close to a proper disarmament agreement, and i'd rather not have the possibility of damaging those chances by betting on the new guy just yet. I believe he'd be a massively powerful candidate in 2024, and even now, i think he'd bring some much needed discussion to the table, as trump did in 2016, but I don't think him taking the seat just yet would be a net gain on the national discussion front.







Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...