4% nationally with NBC. 5% with black voters. 6% with Hispanic voters. Only 2% with white voters. Damn it white people, you're dragging us down! lol ... 1174068569287512065 is not a valid tweet id
Equal Citizens, a pro democracy advocacy group started after 2016 election by Lawrence Lessig, Richard Painter and Robert Reich endorsed Yang as having the strongest democracy reform platform in the race. Some highlights : Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico (if they choose it) Independent redistricting commissions Redrawing district lines using the efficiency gap automatic voter registration ranked choice voting lowering voting age to 16 Make election day a national holiday A $100 voucher to each eligible voter for each federal voting cycle that can be used to donate to the campaigns of your choosing Overturn Citizens United and Buckley vs. Valeo 12 year congressional term limits 18 year Supreme Court justice term limits Presidents, cabinet members and regulatory agency directors should have their salaries increased in exchange for a ban on lucrative speaking fees and board positions after service. Automatic restoration of voting rights for x felons who complete their punishment Old/archaic laws should come up for automatic review periodically in order to justify their existence Revive earmarks in order to make it easier to pass new laws Modernize voting - blockchain technology could make cell phone voting as safe as in person voting Protect the electoral college, but states should consider allocating them proportionally (like some states already do)
Yang at 7% in California may not have been an outlier ... Two polls in one day. #yangGang, Good news! #AndrewYang hits 7% in SurveyUSA poll27% Joe Biden18% Bernie Sanders16% Elizabeth Warren13% Kamala Harris7% Andrew Yang3% Pete Buttigieg2% Beto O'Rourke2% Julian Castro2% Cory Booker1% Amy Klobuchar1% Other7% Undecidedhttps://t.co/Qpvc0rT4ZS— Sisilili 💎 (@SisiLiliDidi) September 18, 2019
Might not be as unusual as you think. One of the most fascinating things about Yang's campaign is how forgotten it is in history that UBI actually passed the House of Representatives twice under Nixon. The plan would have been $1,600 per person (roughly $10,000 by today's standards). It was endorsed by a bipartisan panel of 1,200 economists. Nixon was ready to sign. It was actually the Democratic led Senate who held out on a vote because they wanted the payment to be higher. But then Watergate happened and the whole thing fell to the wayside. It's been said that this was the biggest missed opportunity in Democratic Party history. UBI right now is inside Justin Trudeau's party's platform and their government is launching pilot programs. Same in the Netherlands. Also at local levels, right now Stockton, California is launching a program. Finland already completed a pilot program. And that's basically how it would play out in the US if Yang won the election. He would put it into the party platform first. Then they would launch a multi year pilot program. That's pretty much it. One of the reasons why fear of UBI is a bad reason to not vote Yang. Congress isn't going to write a bill this important without research. 10 years to implementation would be a realistic timeline There may be two additional areas where UBI may have some natural support. First place is labor. UBI strengthens a striking position. One of Yang's early backers was Andy Stern, the x head of the SEIU. And another place is in the civil rights movement. UBI was one of the primary policies that MLK was advocating for at the end of his life. There's a UBI march in New York in October where Yang will speak alongside some pretty prominent Civil Rights leaders, including Al Sharpton. Will be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out.
I haven't heard of any limbo, but I believe the announcement isn't for awhile. Not sure because I didn't sign up.
Aren't all those State issues, meaning they are responsibility of the States and not the federal government. Federal crimes? or all crimes? Did the supreme court already rule on this? Or did they rule that states could not set limits, but the federal may still be able? Also all that progressive shit, and nothing about increasing the size of the house of representatives by updating the house seats appropriation from the 1920's. What up with that?
Yanger's 1st UBI recipient: I Was Andrew Yang’s First ‘Freedom Dividend’ Recipient - When He Fired Me https://www.gothamgazette.com/opini...-first-freedom-dividend-recipient-he-fired-me
I mean, firing people is part of the deal as a business owner. Not sure what I should be talking away from this other than "local lady doesn't enjoy being fired".
Wow, that was a waste of 5 minutes. Shitty that he would fire a person on the heels of getting married (which is "punishment" enough!*). This has f*ck all to do with Andrew Yang's idiotic "freedom bonus," though. She received a generous severance, good for her. It shows that he is either a crappy businessman, dumping a great employee because of his perceived notion she will not be as dedicated or work as hard because she married. Or, that he is shrewd businessman, seeing a disgruntled harpy of an employee and having the balls to make the move. And compassionate enough to provide a 2 year severance. I suspect the latter more, but with some of the former. She comes off as bitter and very biased. I do agree with he last sentence. *remind me, again, why I am no longer married. I am happily in a 16 year, non-married relationship.
I'm curious, what makes it so idiotic? A similar plan actually passed the House under Nixon and Dems were on board at the time. Just curious to know what peoples' reasons are to have such visceral negative reactions towards UBI. It's especially surprising to hear from progressives who presumably care about poverty, homelessness etc ... UBI is becoming mainstream in other Western progressive nations like Canada and Scandinavia. The concept is supported by a pretty broad range of economists ranging from Robert Reich and Yanis Varoufakis on the left to Milton Friedman on the right. That bill under Nixon was endorsed by a bipartisan panel of 1200 economists. Recently it was endorsed at the world's most prominent international economist conference. And I don't say that as a stone cold UBI advocate. I have my issues with the plan. But I'm confused as to what the other alternatives are on the American left as far as addressing declining labor participation rates and the rise of underemployment in the gig economy.
Obviously I'd be fine with Yang compared to Trump I prefer Warren's reformist platform though. I guess I just trust her a bit more. Warren would be my preference over Biden or Bernie
All of these redistributive methods need priority. UBI is also a good idea, if we aren't going to financially reward lots of key work like raising kids. It's what I support free healthcare as that is in effect, a major wealth transfer to working people.
I completely agree with this. Here is a trivial example. When I was a student, you could get student unemployment benefit over the summer when you were not studying full time. This was because you could not draw your student benefits or loans out of term time. This was like $125 per week, and you could also earn up to 130p/w without losing any of your benefit. So this created a situation where the optimal amount for us to work was either full time, where in the restaurant we could make around $380 per week, OR part time 15 hrs or so, where we could get a total of $250 per week So in essence we were incentivised to refuse shifts at the restaurant (which were bloody hard work) and instead seek cash jobs on the grey market.
This part. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/02/02/india-debates-the-case-for-a-universal-basic-income Plus Yang has already backed out a bit on replacing all other welfare programs with UBI, so he now claims that if you can opt in, or keep your current programs. So the savings that would come from getting rid of all other welfare programs are not going to be there any more (there will be some savings, but there are fixed cost on keeping them around for those than want them). In practice you waste too much money by giving it to everyone, but politically you have to bribe everyone to get them to vote for your program, so I do understand the dilemma of UBI. But to argue against what Xtom would prefer. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/04/06/a-better-anti-poverty-plan-for-india That is what UBI tries to solve, if a benefit only goes to a few people, it does not matter if it is any good, because the voters will be upset that someone else is getting "free" benefits, and they will vote to shut them down out of jealousy. Their solution Then again, the rich 25% would then use all their free speech rights ($$$$$$$$$$) to lobby to reduce or eliminate such program.