Andrew Yang updates

No. The $10,000 will be paid for. It will be paid for via elimination of various income transfer programs, elimination of various income tax exemptions/deductions and increased taxes on the better off. Basically the final result might be that the bottom 40% or so of the income distribution will be better off, the next 40% will about break even and the top 20% will be worse off. There are lots of different plans out there, but none of them suggest that everyone gets sent $10,000 and nothing else changes.

The history of UBI goes back centuries but Nixon almost got his version of UBI passed in 1970.

The Democrats botched it, pushing for a higher number to start. Democrats in an echo chamber are dangerous because all they see are the enemy and can’t get out of their own way to get to progress. The US could have had a guaranteed minimum income since 1970.

Andrew Yang explaining why he started the Forward party. It’s not for a Presidential run at this point.

Also, LOL about MSNBC talking about Yang. An editor from MSNBC that left MSNBC admitted that MSNBC blacked out Yang purposely.

No offense but anyone who really believes that UBI will work, especially for the bottom end of the income curve, just need to go back and read some macro. It doesn’t fucking work

You might want to tell that to Greg Mankiw, author of multiple economics textbooks used in most colleges.

Define “work”.

Whatever – I don’t care

I agree you’re not devaluing the currency. But you could still cause inflation. You could also give everyone $1000 a month, not pay for it, and still not cause inflation (though, in practice, those numbers are big enough that that’s extremely unlikely.) The mental model that folks have that inflation results from - and only from - injecting more money into the economy is too simplistic. You also need to take into account things like the velocity of that money (which is likely to increase if you redistribute from rich to poor) and how much ‘slack’ the economy has, which seemed to quite a bit immediately prior to covid and seems to be ‘almost none’ now.

You’re absolutely correct. Actually writing a UBI law will be amazingly complex to make it work as intended and it will certainly need adjustments for the first couple of decades to get all of the kinks worked out. I was just arguing against the idea that

There are lots of levers to manage inflation and its beyond simplistic so say that you have to cause inflation with UBI.

I suggest both proponents and detractors of Yang’s plan actually read it before mistakenly thinking they have anything of value to contribute to a discussion about it.

Yes, unlike Republicans they instantly reject all solutions that they didn’t come up with. Which is why they made the ACA as a carbon copy of the Republicans health care plan, which the Republicans instantly categorically rejected as soon as the Democrats started supporting it. :roll_eyes:

As for his third party, I’m all for breaking up the two party system we have now, but until it breaks starting a new progressive party is going to be counter productive, although I’m sure a Yang candidacy will get all the support it needs from Putin and Republican shadow PACs.

If Yang really wanted to do the best thing to achieve his policy goals, he should have his party do an all out push for ranked choice voting, and then only run candidates in those states in which his effort succeeded.

Like.

Here are some stats from the video.

Only 17% of the funds allocated by Congress for renter’s aid actually got into the hands of people. Too many hoops at the state and local level kept it from people. The rest of it was unused as renters were getting evicted from their homes.

Only 18% of the $2.2T Cares Act went to people. The rest went to corporations. If the entire amount went to people, there would have been enough to give every citizen in the US $1K/mo for 6 months.

Only 10% of the population elects 83% of the politicians.

That’s exactly what he’s doing. From the video in post #42, time stamped.

Thanks for that time mark. I admit I didn’t have time to watch the whole video (much prefer text to video), but based on what he said a few minutes after what he’s proposing with regard to the “party” sounds very reasonable. Not a whole new party, but a slate of candidates to run in existing party’s primaries. I’m betting 95% of them are gointg to be running as Democrats… I don’t know enough about his policies to know whether I approve or not, but at least I don’t think that his actions are necessarily going to fracture the No-Trump vote.

What percentage of the voting-eligible population does that 10% represent?

I did some research…

Approximately 240 million people were eligible to vote in 2020, out of a population of approximately 330 million. So only about 73% of the US population can vote.

In the presidential election, about 66% of that eligible group of people actually voted.

That works out to roughly 160 million people submitting a vote for president, or about half the total population. So that 10% of the population represent about a 5th of actual voters (20%). Still a small percentage but twice the statistic cited.

Just satisfying my own curiosity.

Remember - the original quote says 83% of the politicians, not 83% of the President. A few things to consider:

  1. The 2020 Presidential election had a much higher participation than any recent Presidential election
  2. many states have their statewide elections on non-Presidential election years, so turnout is less
  3. many localities have their elections on non-Gubernatorial non-Presidential years, or during off-times (spring instead of fall), pretty much GUARANTEEING much lower turnout.
  4. Many local elections (ie not national, not state-wide) end up un-opposed, and some people don’t bother marking the ballot for them
  5. Remember - if the race is close, only half of the people elected the winner; the other half voted against.

So, let’s do a little math. Census bureau says eligible population = 252m; 155m voted. Close enough to your numbers, but remember - only 81m voted for Biden. 63m voted for Trump in 2016, with turnout about 52%. 252m eligible voters / 330m total population = 76%, meaning 24% are ineligible (too young, resident aliens, whatever).

Let’s say (and these are reasonable numbers) 40% of eligible voters actually vote in an off-year election. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that 17% of the races are uncontested (hence, the 83% number in the original quote), and the remainder are close enough to use 50%. So now, 40% participation, 50% vote for; 76% are eligible, you’re talking in the neighborhood of 15% of the people elected the winner.

Yeah, the original person pulled the 10% number out of thin air, but it’s not as far off as you might think.

Oh, and if I need to show my work,…

per the Census Bureau, , voter turnout for 2020 presidential was 66.7%; average turnout for National Election years (even years) this century is 49.9% - 56.7% for Presidential years; 43.0% for other years. Heck, that means my 40% number might be high.

Well, maybe not completely out of thin air. Here’s some info.

You can click on a link in that article that goes to the white paper. It’s a 50 page document that text readers might enjoy. I didn’t read it. My computer choked on it.

And yes, it’s 10% of the voting population. Since roughly a quarter of the US population is children (22% in 2019), many people when talking about politics don’t factor them into the population of people electing people.

The reason the problem has consequence is because of the ways people are getting elected, the majority of people don’t decide the outcome. The outcomes are decided, often before the general election.

This is one of the reasons that Yang started the Forward party. It is to get people out of this duopoly gridlock. The amount of people needed to get out of the gridlock isn’t much as the 10% figure illustrates.

More info. on what Yang is trying to do, both in video and text form.

There are others that can’t vote for other reasons. For that statistic look here:

http://www.electproject.org/2020g

The total voting-eligible population was 239,247,182 which I just rounded to 240 million to make the math easy. The total population of the US was 331,449,281 in 2020. So about 72% of the population was eligible to vote, and 28% was ineligible, not 22%.

Got it. And I’m sure that 6% is very important for some reason that you’re not articulating. The statistic was used in an interview to help explain why a 3rd party was necessary. Quibbling with the exact words that didn’t go into full detail during a quick interview isn’t shedding light on the issue or any problems or disagreements with the issue. It’s largely irrelevant.

I already explained…

I was wondering if the numbers were being manipulated in a big way to make it appear more dramatic than it was, but it doesn’t look like it.

The “importance” was precision, that’s all. If we’re going to quote numbers it helps to know what those numbers are. For example, when you said 10% of the population you misspoke, it was 10% of the voting population (which are different groups of people). Either way, it still pans out that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of sway from a small group of people which I can’t help but think undermines the democratic process and disenfranchises people.