2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Aridas]

Yang has repeatedly said that people can choose either UBI or the current benefits they get. So if people feel the current government assistance they receive is better than his UBI proposal they can keep what they had before.

Thanks for adding that. Yang seems interesting from what little I've seen, either way, but I really don't expect him to win the nomination. It might be interesting to see how many of his proposals are adopted by others, though.

 

[SezMe]

I'd rather have some form of universal healthcare first before we talk about basic income.

I agree that healthcare is the top priority but there's a political reason I'm against Yang's proposal. The GOP would use that idea to scare the hell out of the public that that is the first step toward socialism. I know they will flog the socialism meme endlessly but that proposal makes the accusation credible. I hope the Dems drop it.

 

[Zambo]

Which makes it no less creepy. The fact that it's part of his normal behavior could be telling. It isn't part of anyones affectionate demeanor that I've ever seen.

I reserve judgment but it looks kinda like a duck.

I worry I could develop creepy behaviour as I grow old. Obviously not as bad as Biden, but you know just some attempt to be anciently flirtatious towards young women in positions of lower authority - our office cleaner and photocopier girl for example. Note to myself: just behave.

I've studied videos of Biden up to his tricks, in some the huggee appears to be getting an unexpected prod in the back (back of the neck for the shorter ones). Come on Joe there are strip clubs and buses for that sort of thing.

Biden has no chance in 2020, he must know it. I hope I'm wrong to think he's only considering a run to give himself enhanced touching opportunities. If so that's not going to happen now. Just drop it Joe. In fact, let's face it, retiree and care facilities are hot beds of inappropriate behaviour, and Joe - nobody will complain what you get up to there.

If Trump can hold his ability to lie, bully and insult intact for just a few more months he would wipe out Joe Biden. Time to move on to a candidate who has a chance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Stripping away other elements of the social security net wasn't on the table. We're talking about a Democratic Candidate in the current environment, remember? My apologies if my comparison of it to the GOP tax cuts' effectiveness and popularity unintentionally misled you, though.



This is separate from Medicare for All, which is another one of his main policy positions.

Wow, seems like that guy is outdoing Sanders.

 

[Brainster]

1000 dollars a month. So that’s 12,000 a year and yes somewhere in the region of three trillion. I would be interested to see what economists make of his plans. But we should be clear about what his proposals are.

Injecting that kind of money into the economy sounds great at first blush. But it is extremely inflationary. With all that extra cash in the economy chasing the same amount of goods, prices will rise for simple supply and demand reasons. And when he talks about paying for it with a VAT, that's a double whammy, since VATs are also inflationary. Third, it discourages work. What teenager is going to want to work for $8.00 an hour when he's getting the equivalent just sitting at home playing video games? I remember being eager to start working, mainly because I was tired of being broke.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Injecting that kind of money into the economy sounds great at first blush. But it is extremely inflationary. With all that extra cash in the economy chasing the same amount of goods, prices will rise for simple supply and demand reasons. And when he talks about paying for it with a VAT, that's a double whammy, since VATs are also inflationary. Third, it discourages work. What teenager is going to want to work for $8.00 an hour when he's getting the equivalent just sitting at home playing video games? I remember being eager to start working, mainly because I was tired of being broke.

If you're buying video games while earning $8.00/hr. someone else is subsidizing your life costs and that can happen in the system we have now, so it's not a unique criticism that the idea has to answer for.

 

[angrysoba]

What teenager is going to want to work for $8.00 an hour when he's getting the equivalent just sitting at home playing video games? I remember being eager to start working, mainly because I was tired of being broke.

Teenagers under 18 don't get it. As for the question of why work when you have money, the answer is to get more money! The point about UBI is that it doesn't disincentivize work the way that other welfare systems do such as those that you cannot claim when you are in work.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Teenagers under 18 don't get it. As for the question of why work when you have money, the answer is to get more money! The point about UBI is that it doesn't disincentivize work the way that other welfare systems do such as those that you cannot claim when you are in work.

OK, but what about the people not incentivized to work who simply use the money for drugs and alcohol?

There used to be a category for welfare here in WA called General Assistance for the Unemployable. To get it you simply had to claim you had incalcitrant alcoholism. They gave these people a check every month until someone figured out they needed a rent payment and food, not cash.

And is this UBI also supposed to be paid to rich people out of everyone's taxes?

It's a stupid idea based on one concept ignoring a dozen others.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

OK, but what about the people not incentivized to work who simply use the money for drugs and alcohol?

There used to be a category for welfare here in WA called General Assistance for the Unemployable. To get it you simply had to claim you had incalcitrant alcoholism. They gave these people a check every month until someone figured out they needed a rent payment and food, not cash.

And is this UBI also supposed to be paid to rich people out of everyone's taxes?

It's a stupid idea based on one concept ignoring a dozen others.

What about the not hypothetical problems with the system we have now?

 

[angrysoba]

OK, but what about the people not incentivized to work who simply use the money for drugs and alcohol?

Good question. But first we need to acknowledge that even without UBI people will spend money on drugs and alcohol. So the important question is then, whether or not UBI will increase or decrease this problem. It may seem intuitive that if someone suddenly has larger amounts of money they will spend more money on booze and drugs, but actually, it is often people with very little money who spend what little they have on booze and drugs. In fact, we know that people make bad decisions when they are more stressed, have less money etc...

On Yang's Q&A he addresses this:

Won’t people spend their money on dumb things like drugs and alcohol?

The data doesn’t show this. In many of the studies where cash is given to the poor, there has been no increase in drug and alcohol use. In fact, many people use it to try and reduce their alcohol consumption or substance abuse. In Alaska, for example, people regularly put the petroleum dividend they receive from the state in accounts for their children’s education. The idea that poor people will be irresponsible with their money and squander it seems to be a biased stereotype rather than a truth.

Decision-making has been shown to improve when people have greater economic security. Giving people resources will enable them to make better decisions to improve their situation. As Dutch philosopher Rutger Bregman puts it, “Poverty is not a lack of character. It’s a lack of cash.”

Do you have evidence that UBI increases the number of people using the money for drugs and alcohol?

There used to be a category for welfare here in WA called General Assistance for the Unemployable. To get it you simply had to claim you had incalcitrant alcoholism. They gave these people a check every month until someone figured out they needed a rent payment and food, not cash.

And is this UBI also supposed to be paid to rich people out of everyone's taxes?

It's paid to everyone, and is funded by VAT, not income tax. There's a reason for this too:

Why would you give Universal Basic Income to the rich?
By giving everyone UBI, the stigma for accepting cash transfers from the government disappears. Additionally, it removes the incentive for anyone to remain within certain income brackets to receive benefits. If it’s paid for by a Value-Added Tax as in Andrew’s plan, a wealthy person will likely pay more into the system than he or she gets out of it.

It's a stupid idea based on one concept ignoring a dozen others.

Sorry, what is this "one concept" and what are the "dozen others" being ignored?

I will state, as I think I already have, that I am really not sure about the idea yet. What I would like to see is it debated on the Democratic platform and for Yang's plan, in particular, to come to the attention of serious economists.

What I find weird is all these knee-jerk responses to his plan by people who haven't even apparently ventured as far as Yang's website and show no signs of having thought about UBI seriously.

 

[Aridas]

I agree that healthcare is the top priority but there's a political reason I'm against Yang's proposal. The GOP would use that idea to scare the hell out of the public that that is the first step toward socialism. I know they will flog the socialism meme endlessly but that proposal makes the accusation credible. I hope the Dems drop it.

Only Yang's pushing for it, to my knowledge, and Yang's effectively one of the no names. Overall, I'm pretty neutral about UBI, either way. I see the benefits as greatly out-weighing the problems, and that it's likely a decent solution or, rather, part of the solution for a number of the issues that we are nearly inevitably going to be facing in the future at this rate... and already are, for that matter, once it's running smoothly, but the problems with getting it to run smoothly are indeed quite significant.

 

[portlandatheist]

(changed my mind)

 

[portlandatheist]

And is this UBI also supposed to be paid to rich people out of everyone's taxes?

It will cost rich people much more than it will benefit them.
There is a strange dynamic with UBI:
Propose a revenue neutral carbon tax and dividend program, and everybody views that as a "tax" and not as an "income"
Propose Universal Income and everybody views that as an "income" and not as a "tax".
both proposals are both taxes and incomes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What about the not hypothetical problems with the system we have now?

What's that supposed to mean? Because the system sucks we should replace it with a different system that sucks?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good question. But first we need to acknowledge that even without UBI people will spend money on drugs and alcohol. So the important question is then, whether or not UBI will increase or decrease this problem.

Since it was actually tried here, I can say it increased the problem.

It may seem intuitive that if someone suddenly has larger amounts of money they will spend more money on booze and drugs, but actually, it is often people with very little money who spend what little they have on booze and drugs. In fact, we know that people make bad decisions when they are more stressed, have less money etc...

On Yang's Q&A he addresses this:

Idealistic drivel. Sorry.

Do you have evidence that UBI increases the number of people using the money for drugs and alcohol?

Do you have evidence it won't? Seems to me the one UBI experiment in Scandinavia has already failed.

It's paid to everyone, and is funded by VAT, not income tax. There's a reason for this too:

VAT is a regressive tax. But so what, it's still tax dollars.

Sorry, what is this "one concept" and what are the "dozen others" being ignored?

One concept: that the UBI is wonderful. Dozen others: all the problems with it.

I will state, as I think I already have, that I am really not sure about the idea yet. What I would like to see is it debated on the Democratic platform and for Yang's plan, in particular, to come to the attention of serious economists.

What I find weird is all these knee-jerk responses to his plan by people who haven't even apparently ventured as far as Yang's website and show no signs of having thought about UBI seriously.

If you mean me here, you're full of it. Your nonsense that the rest of us are ignorant is a fail.

This is not the first mention of a UBI. It's not the first time I've looked at the concept and I did look at Yang's webpage. It was a running list of all of Bernie's socialism plus a bit more.

You guys think no one has every thought of this stuff. You really need to read a lot more history.

 

[angrysoba]

Since it was actually tried here, I can say it increased the problem.

Idealistic drivel. Sorry.

Do you have evidence it won't? Seems to me the one UBI experiment in Scandinavia has already failed.

VAT is a regressive tax. But so what, it's still tax dollars.

One concept: that the UBI is wonderful. Dozen others: all the problems with it.

If you mean me here, you're full of it. Your nonsense that the rest of us are ignorant is a fail.

This is not the first mention of a UBI. It's not the first time I've looked at the concept and I did look at Yang's webpage. It was a running list of all of Bernie's socialism plus a bit more.

You guys think no one has every thought of this stuff. You really need to read a lot more history.

Care to cite some evidence for your claims? Or are you just going to rant? You say you looked at the website but you asked two questions which are directly answered so you obviously didn’t look very hard.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Political opinions on UBI:

Commentary: Universal Basic Income: An Idea That's Already Been Tried And Failed

NYT Opinion: Universal Basic Income Didn’t Fail in Finland. Finland Failed It.

Daily Torch Opinion: Universal Basic Income fails in Finland, but will the left learn its lesson?

The Money Manifesto: Universal Basic Income: An Idea That’s Already Been Tried And Failed

Don't be so sure of yourself that the rest of us are just stupid, Mr Soba.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Care to cite some evidence for your claims? Or are you just going to rant? You say you looked at the website but you asked two questions which are directly answered so you obviously didn’t look very hard.

Jesus, I went off to get some citations and look at your false assumptions, they're worse.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh dear, all that worry about Creepy Joe is redundant.

He has much, much bigger fish to try to deal with: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

Amazing how quiet the left has been on this. Had that been Eric or DJT Jr, the Dems would have been breaking blood vessels screaming. The report is also in The Times UK today, so it looks fairly legit.

 

[Aridas]

Oh dear, all that worry about Creepy Joe is redundant.

He has much, much bigger fish to try to deal with: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

Amazing how quiet the left has been on this. Had that been Eric or DJT Jr, the Dems would have been breaking blood vessels screaming. The report is also in The Times UK today, so it looks fairly legit.

Biden's not in the race right now and is not in a position of power currently. He's also never been one of my favored candidates. He would get my vote over Trump, if somewhat grudgingly, yes. That he would get my vote is saying nearly nothing. That it would be grudgingly says a lot. I have no problem at all with sending Democrats to jail if they deserve it, though, on another front.