Yang for Prez
I really like this guy, his Platform is to prepare for the changing nature of work coming due to automation and AI. Seems super smart, motivated by a desire to help people and is a big picture thinker. Very interesting guy, not very politicianry.
Here with Pakman: https://youtu.be/DlGgO2sYXZA With Sam Harris: https://youtu.be/XHYYVM0rJAw And recently with Rogan: https://youtu.be/cTsEzmFamZ8 |
The Yangman has got over the threshold to make it to the first round of the debates. No here love the Yang? Not even W2W?
|
Yang and Buttiegeg would both be great to have in the debates. Unfortunately they will be crowded out by worthless chaff like Gillibrand.
|
I like Yang, but Beto is my choice out of the candidates this far.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I actually listened to an interview with Howard Schultz and he seems quite smart and very business minded. He dislikes things on both sides of the isle. He believes each of these important things like health care, illegal citizens should, be able to be resolved by smart men and women and look for resolution. The issue for him is that as an independent he has not chance. If he picks a party, then he has to give up half of the things he deems important. He is BIG on America and bringing back American jobs and fixing our Schools/Police/Fire and continue our military, so lots of things I like to hear.
I do think we need a business man in the oval office. I do believe that 2020 will go to Trump, but after that it is almost a lock that it will be a democrat. Might be good to hav an independent at some point, right?I know Trump is a business man, but just has too much baggage and craziness to really bring the two parties together. |
Quote:
|
watching Andrew Yang on JRE. seems like a smart guy. this robotics/automation BS could bring some serious change to our economy and productivity. throw in his idea of everyone getting a "dividend" of $1000 per month, seems like Trumps next real opponent.
|
Yang has the balls to go on the daily wire with Shapiro:
https://youtu.be/-DHuRTvzMFw |
Quote:
|
"a hyperactive limb-flailing imbecile, babbling compulsively in a torrent of extremist nonsense barely couched in comprehensible syntax."
Couldn't have coined a more precise description of Trump. |
I like Yang too. Donated to him already. As someone that works in data at a tech company, I really think AI/Automation is the elephant in the room for the next 10-20 years. If we're proactive and create good outcomes for all, it will greatly benefit the world. If we don't do anything, there are going to be a lot of people on the streets. It's not as simple as installing UBI, but I still like Yang's freedom dividend as a start.
|
So Yang supports a $12,000 a year universal basic income for everyone. So that’s $2.4 trillion a year which is over half of the tax revenue we current take in. How is that supposed to work?
|
Quote:
How would we pay for Universal Basic Income? It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction. A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent. The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources: 1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits. 2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software. 3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity. 4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth. |
What's the PC word for welfare? Human services or some BS? anyway, it's a broken system and needs a revamp. I just don't see how handing essentially everyone $1000 per month as the solution.
Is he not just buying votes? I heard very little of what he said other than 1000/pp/month.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Anytime I see or hear "paying their fare share", I automatically think that a 8 year old wrote it. |
Quote:
Do you think the author is 8 because they can’t spell fair? Are taxes exactly fair right now? |
everyones in favor of any bracket but their own being raised blows my mind. We all should be saying enough is enough. Take from this group to give to that group is peanuts compared to whats taken from everyone collectively. The middle man is keeping the biggest cut, and its apparent that the robin hood mentality has not, nor will it ever work.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also right wingers: Tax is theft! Lol. |
Quote:
|
Can we assume if the deficit is back on it's way up in the "best economy in history" that they are too low?
|
Quote:
I’ll disagree here and say that spending is too high. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
How about spending is too high for the current level of taxes? |
Quote:
|
Either way the same. But we can all agree (assuming we are capable of reading graphs) that in our lives pretty much during all Republican Presidents the govt raises deficit spending and during Democrat Presidents the govt lowers it.
|
Quote:
Bush we had continued spending on the housing bubble where everyone was pulling money out of the properties fake value then it all burst. Also a war to pay for. We also had a mostly democrat congress at that time During Obama, there was never a new budget passed. It was almost all continuing resolutions until the deal was made for the automatic sequestration which cut 10%. Point is, not sure I can make an absolute case. The president does not pass a budget. I don't believe congress has used the presidents numbers ever cart blanche |
During Trump the Republicans raised deficit spending with zero excuses that you can attribute to the Democrats. Obama cut the deficit from well over a trillion to around 3/4 trillion. The Republicans are raising it back up to over a trillion after Obama lowered it, lowered unemployment and over doubled the stock market. Hard to wiggle out of that one. Point is.... Democrat President, deficit spending goes down. Republican President, deficit spending goes up. You can dance on the head of a pin all day with excuses, but those are the facts.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Obama - they did not pass a budget. They passed continuing resolutions. Sometimes it is the luck of the draw on whether or not you are going to get a strong economy. Usually the policy changes you make take years to take hold. It is a big ship to make always statements. |
Except when the historical evidence is "always". Then you can say "always" until it changes. I understand what you are saying. Except the America people think in terms of who's in the WH.
Heck Republicans imagine all kinds of things when a Democrats in the WH. They imagine the President as tax and spend even when he lowers taxes and spending as Obama did. Then they imagine Trump draining the swamp as he's filling it. They imagine Obama as a liar even though they only can think of one or two lies he told. Then when Trump entered office they imagined that lies no longer matter. Americans imagine the US as a moral nation even though it's constantly at war and selling more weapons than any other nation in the world. They imagined that sending kids fresh out of high school to their deaths halfway around the world fighting for the independence of a country they wouldn't even want to live in as a noble cause. Just not noble enough to risk their own lives. They imagine that Germany is declaring war on the US by taking over the internet under the influence of the Roman Empire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=EsSG9dNXLIE And they imagine there is a magic man in the sky that will fix everything after they f**k up the planet with pollution and war. But there is one thing you can always count on without having to imagine.... The GOP raising America's deficit spending.;) |
Yang for Prez
Quote:
So for the eight years of the GWB presidency, two years of dem control of the house (06-08) means “mostly”? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Obama lied on a couple of big policy decisions that impacted millions. Trump says what he says but you guys only listen to him. I have not heard a single speech he has given because I know when a president is speaking, it is usually a sales pitch. On draining a swamp? You believe that is why people voted for him? There are only so many people who know how to transition a government. You will never completely drain anything. You think all war is immoral or just the ones you don't like? I still don't know what you are going on about Germany and the Roman Empire. If you want a case for the Roman Empire, we certainly seem to be following in the same footsteps. Other than that, I don't know what you keep referencing. |
That was on last weekends OTA TV Sunday morning religious programming. LOL! Just a nice current sample of the crazy stuff people imagine to be true.
I don't need to argue with you over the deficit being cut during the Obama administration. It's a matter of historical fact. But you can imagine otherwise.:p |
Quote:
We don't have to argue over spending. Just because people tie presidents to economy does not make them correct. People who know how real life is, knows where spending originates and there are lead and lags of policy. The presidents get too much credit and too much blame for the economy. |
Quote:
And if you are counting the bursting of the housing bubble, surely you're giving Obama the benefit of the doubt of being handed such a mess? |
Quote:
At the end of the day, the economy will go down and go up on it's own. If there is a partial collapse, then the really rich and foreign investors will see value and invest and so goes the cycle. What changes incoming and outgoing money is foreign policy, environmental policy, regulations in general. There are more than one economic model so the whole theory of economics is in constant debate, yet you are willing to argue that a single president who are typically lawyers and one with a career or community organizing was an economic genius? |
Quote:
Let’s get clarity on this “mostly” thing first. |
Quote:
What exactly did Obama really do? He did nothing just like Clinton and Bush did nothing about the hot markets created by fake money. They couldn't. The president does not pass laws. I think most people agree that trying to bail out companies actually makes recovery longer. Those companies that failed did so due to poor business practices. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
He hired well trained economists, and took their advice. And then had some decent luck to boot. If you have HBO, the Vice doc on the 2008 financial crisis does a pretty good job. https://www.hbo.com/vice/special-rep...nancial-crisis |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It’s called a stalemate. Gridlock. It’s not control. Contrast 2016-18 where Rs had both houses but not filibuster proof majority. They managed to get a lot done, because they did have control. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Republican Control Jan-June 2001 Democrat Control July 2001-December 2002 Republican Jefferies swapped and started to caucus with the Democrats Republican Control Jan- 2003- Dec. 2006 Democrat Control January 2007-2008 |
So 4.5 years R to 3.5 years D? With most of the D years including two caucusing independents?
|
Quote:
|
No they had 4.5 years. The years where independents pushed the dems to 51 votes count as dem years. Duh. The highest imbalance in those years was repubs with 55.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
From the research I found on him after these discussions came up I believe the numbers of successful business he started was on the order of 85% successful. Business genius? Don't know, however from the research I did that is a pretty good number. Can you tell me how a lawyer with an occupation in communist organizing is the person we need to rely on for business advice? Not sure how people get ahead, but I am sure their was some teet sucking going on to get into harvard, communist organizing, 1 term state senate to 1 term congress to president. If one was to have actually worked for it, I am not sure the one in this paragraph would be that guy. Back to Trump. He may be no genius but at least he could figure out, like many of us, that we had to many funds heading out of the country and too many of our businesses having to compete with slave labor. He is addressing it. He also knows that illegals are killing our democracy and overwhelming many of our states. Does that take a genius? Probably not. Those things are pretty easy to figure out and are actually known to everyone. Difference is, we have one group who wants those things to happen on purpose because they are idealogically driven to allow those things. Trump and the rest of America are idealogically driven to be for Americans. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We didn't need to listen to Obama for "business advice". He hired experts for that. Trump hires fellow reality stars or former Fox News hosts. So you can slam Obama's "lack of experience" all you want. He wasn't advising other countries to use "air tankers" to extinguish building fires. Obama knows how to spell hamburger. |
Quote:
Let's go with this. If you are facing an army that had the numbers and had offensive capabilities and your side was able to hold them off from going where they were trying to go. What would you say about the defenders? Would you say they controlled the situation? Lost ground? What would the narrative be? By definition the defense (minority party) is at a disadvantage. They have zero power on what gets brought up for vote. If your position not of power and you don't let the powerful get what they want, you by definition are exercising some sort of control. |
Quote:
Piling money into a business does not make a business successful. If you have a bad model, then it becomes a sink hole for money. Even you can do that math on that. There are millions in the world who try and create businesses and majority fail. Even the rich ones. You can try and frame his record with ya butts all you want. The facts are the facts. He has a pretty good success rate from what I can see and the little research I did. Before I looked at it, I really did not care and never really liked the guy from based on his tv persona. As a lawyer I would hope that Obama could spell. That is the only thing he was good at besides pushing communist agendas. |
If you think Trump turned a million into a billion, then you could probably be tooled into believing anything.
|
Quote:
How about this. Anyone in this room take $1000 and turn it into a million? Or even $100,000. Even a standard investment at age 30 by the time you hit 65 will only double 5 times with good historic returns for a grand total of 32,000 by letting it ride. Not saying he is a genius but it takes a bit to get a 1,000 times return on investment. Could be wrong and that is why I am just a working stiff but seems impressive enough. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
What you wrote was "If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion." Anyone with half a brain can see how one-sided that is, because you are only giving this flim flam minority control business to the democrats - you aren't counting it when the republicans are in the minority and doing the obstructing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Little Don was a millionaire by age 8. And his dad actually "loaned" him closer to $60mil ($140 mil in today's dollars) - it wasn't paid back so it's a gift, not a loan. There's also the millions upon millions shifted to him and his sister later - don himself got roughly $413 mil (the sister recently retired to prevent a judicial inquiry following the NY times tax report) and - even more importantly - the fleet of daddy's lawyers at his disposal to lawnmower over all the small business he screwed over. If he had simply stuck the money he was given in the s&p back then, he'd easily be worth over 2 bil today. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Mayor Pete. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
{Directly from the Mueller report} "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:21 AM. |