It’s My Party [Archive] - Simple Living Forums

ApatheticNoMore

9-10-21, 7:37pm

He seems to be doing it to sell a book, starting a 3rd party in order to push book sales.

Seems a grift. But I'm like why, isn't he supposed to have money or something, what does he need to grift anyway? I think it's about wanting the attention, needing to be in the limelight, ego not money (but maybe $ too).

A 3rd party, oh very well, unless one is pushing ranked choice voting (and maybe not even then, it wasn't favorable to Yang at any rate), that's not going anywhere. It's not that I won't vote 3rd party if the choices are distasteful enough (no I don't have to vote if all the choices are bad - run better people), but I don't expect anything to come of it.

bae

9-10-21, 7:37pm

Teddy Roosevelt he ain’t.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Theodore_Roosevelt_1912_Progressive_Party_bull_moo se_campaign_button.jpg

Yppej

9-10-21, 7:45pm

I liked him when I heard him speak in Plaistow, New Hampshire. He also had the most enthusiastic crowd of the 13 candidates I heard.

GeorgeParker

9-10-21, 11:30pm

He seems to be doing it to sell a book, starting a 3rd party in order to push book sales.Given his obvious political ambitions and his determination in pursuing them and the nature of his book, it is far more likely that he wrote the book to get a lengthy explanation of his political philosophy into the hands of as many people as possible (via book sales and libraries) and to get himself on as many talk shows as possible to discuss his agenda between now and the next election. In that scenario, starting a minor third party would be a good way to gather together and galvanize a strong base of people who support his ideas.

LDAHL

9-11-21, 12:19pm

iris lilies

9-11-21, 12:38pm

I was a little surprised to see a schism on the Democrats’ side before the GOP. I would have thought the differences between the Trump wing and the more traditional conservatives were greater than those between the various species of Democrat.
Will Andrew Yang attract any Never-Trumping Republicans? Should I check himout? I’m pretty desperate to get away from the Always-Tumpers.Maybe I romanticize a third-party, but I think it would be nice to have a strong third-party. I always thought Trump had potential to form that third party with the force of his personality, but he seems to have no principles on which to build. Too many of his followers he sold the “America first”principle but he is really all about Donald first.

GeorgeParker

9-11-21, 12:44pm

I was a little surprised to see a schism on the Democrats’ side before the GOP. I would have thought the differences between the Trump wing and the more traditional conservatives were greater than those between the various species of Democrat.Everyone in the Republican party is afraid of Trump or his supporters putting a right-wing challenger on the ballot during the next Republican primary instead of automatically letting the Republican incumbent win the primary.

Democrats aren't afraid of that happening in their primaries. The Democrats have always been a fractured, fractious political party and no single person or movement is strong enough for every Democrat to be afraid of them.

Or as Will Rogers famously said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

LDAHL

9-11-21, 12:55pm

Everyone in the Republican party is afraid of Trump or his supporters putting a right-wing challenger on the ballot during the next Republican primary instead of automatically letting the Republican incumbent win the primary.

Democrats aren't afraid of that happening in their primaries. The Democrats have always been a fractured, fractious political party and no single person or movement is strong enough for every Democrat to be afraid of them.

Or as Will Rogers famously said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

There have been a few cases where the AOC wing threatened or attempted to “primary” what they felt to be insufficiently left wing Democrats. And the more moderate Democrats in swing districts have voiced their displeasure at the police defunding, redistributive burden they are asked to carry.

And based on recent history, a Trump endorsement hasn’t been uniformly decisive on the GOP side.

happystuff

9-11-21, 1:39pm

Will Andrew Yang attract any Never-Trumping Republicans? Should I check himout? I’m pretty desperate to get away from the Always-Tumpers.Maybe I romanticize a third-party, but I think it would be nice to have a strong third-party. I always thought Trump had potential to form that third party with the force of his personality, but he seems to have no principles on which to build. Too many of his followers he sold the “America first”principle but he is really all about Donald first.

I actually agree with you here, IL. I would love to see a strong third-party - but DEFINITELY NOT the donald!

These conversations remind me of this quote from the West Wing:

Leo: Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to chose between the lesser of who cares, of trying to get myself excited about a candidate who can speak in complete sentences, of setting the bar so low, I can hardly look at it.

But, being the somewhat optimistic person I am, I keep hoping.

catherine

9-11-21, 2:57pm

I think it's a worthy idea to float a 3rd party, but if Yang sticks to his platform, I'd love to see which Never-Trumper-Republicans he attracts, with his platform on UBI and other giveaways.

I'd love to do focus groups with GOP/Dem thought leaders and craft the ideal 3rd party. Test it among the "normal people" Yang is trying to attract.

iris lilies

9-11-21, 3:00pm

GeorgeParker

9-11-21, 5:31pm

Oh right, Andrew was the UBI guy. Nope, I will pass.The best (IMO) form of universal basic income works the same way income tax does. Right now, if your income is less than $12,550 (per person) you don't have to pay any federal income tax. With the related universal basic income method, if your total income (total income, not just taxable income) is less than a certain amount per person, you would receive the difference as a refundable credit. For example, if the UBI was $6000/year and your income was $3988, you would receive $2012 (which is $6000 minus $3988) in addition to any other income tax refund the IRS owed you.

The beauty of this plan is that even people with zero income would get $6000/year tax free without all the forms and rules and bureaucracy involved in unemployment and welfare systems, and at the same time $500/month isn't enough money make people turn down an available job, because almost any job would pay more than $6000/year. And there's no incentive to intentionally earn less than $6000/year, because for every dollar less that you earn you only get one extra dollar of UBI. IOW you don't gain anything by working less, but you do gain by working enough to make more than $6000/year.

I'm sure there are flaws in this system, and I know the politicians would find a way to complicate it and make it totally unfair to the people who need it the most. But the basic plan is sound, and among other things it would allow a parent who is paying almost as much for childcare as they earn at their job to quit and stay home with the kids. That's a win-win for everyone.

catherine

9-11-21, 5:50pm

I'm sure there are flaws in this system, and I know the politicians would find a way to complicate it and make it totally unfair to the people who need it the most. But the basic plan is sound, and among other things it would allow a parent who is paying almost as much for childcare as they earn at their job to quit and stay home with the kids. That's a win-win for everyone.[/SIZE]

Not to be repetitive, but many countries in the Western world support mothers/fathers who prefer to stay with their children than dole them out to day care. I agree with GP: that's a win-win.

ApatheticNoMore

9-11-21, 5:56pm

I don't know, don't even more women work in say Nordic countries etc.? They may work part time and get a lot of support etc. But I think they actual have much higher female employment than the U.S..

I think jumping on the UBI bandwagon is in many ways silly. Let's get a safety net at all first pretty much (talk to me when we have guaranteed sick time, any guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed healthcare).

And like I always say if people got an extra $500 a month, rent would probably just go up by $500 a month.

GeorgeParker

9-11-21, 6:11pm

I think jumping on the UBI bandwagon is in many ways silly. Let's get a safety net at all first pretty much.And pray tell, what safety net would you provide without the high cost of administration and bureaucracy eating up a big percentage of the money that was supposed to help the poor? What safety net would you provide that doesn't require the poor to jump through 27 hoops to prove they qualify and that they still qualify each time a check is due? The beauty of any UBI system is that it is the least bureaucratic way of providing a basic safety net and the least burdensome on the people who benefit from it.

GeorgeParker

9-11-21, 6:17pm

And like I always say if people got an extra $500 a month, rent would probably just go up by $500 a month.The system I described would only give money to households with less than $500 income per person per month. That is such a small percentage of the population that it wouldn't have any effect on cost of rent or anything else. And whatever "safety net" you have in mind would almost certainly put just as much money into people's hands, but at a much higher cost.

Yppej

9-11-21, 7:09pm

I like UBI but I agree universal health care should come first. Medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy and tying health care to employment stifles the creation of new small businesses.

jp1

9-11-21, 9:08pm

I tend to agree with the UBI concept. I’ve read too many stories of people selling their snap food benefits to others at a loss because what they really needed was extra money for gas to get to their job for example. Maybe I’m naive but I trust most people to know what they most need money for. Just giving everyone a flat baseline income that’s low enough to not discourage work seems like a good way to accomplish that. If I were going to implement a UBI system I probably would not make income cause a dollar for dollar reduction since that would require that someone be confident of exceeding $6000 (or whatever) annual income before they did any work. If it were $.50 deduction from UBI for every dollar earned a person could still be inclined to go work some because they’d get some additional income, just not all of it. How to figure out what the right reduction is, I don’t know. I suppose a graduated system would make the most sense but then you start getting into complicated forms to fill out and yadda yadda yadda and suddenly we have a complicated tax scheme that has to be navigated by the lowest earners among us. That doesn’t seem like a good plan.

Yppej

9-11-21, 9:17pm

Maybe I’m naive but I trust most people to know what they most need money for.

Yet you don't trust these same people to make their own health care decisions and want to slap mandates on them.

GeorgeParker

9-11-21, 11:28pm

I like UBI but I agree universal health care should come first. Medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy and tying health care to employment stifles the creation of new small businesses.
Yet you don't trust these same people to make their own health care decisions and want to slap mandates on them.So which is it? You do trust a government run universal healthcare system to give you advice and keep you healthy, or you don't trust government agencies at any level to give you trustworthy medical advice?????

But I do agree we need universal healthcare paid for by the government with the private insurance profit motive eliminated, and every patient should have the right to choose a different doctor/treatment if they're not happy.

ApatheticNoMore

9-12-21, 2:04am

Ok a UBI so limited that barely any people qualify for it, isn't by most definitions a UBI at all, it's not universal which is what the U stands for it. And what makes me have some skepticism toward UBI is actual UBI type proposals that give EVERYONE money, not a different form of poverty assistance with less red tape. There is too much red tape. I could see replacing some low income programs with it (not unemployment, leave that alone!).

I'd worry a lot less that it will discourage work per se, an overblown threat, as that it will encourage work under the table where no income ever gets reported, but that's hard to avoid. It may be unavoidable with any low income assistance program.

But one encounters programs, these may be largely local, where one is sure it is the main thing going on. Low income rents, but if you actually made the income (one can't earn beyond a certain amount) you need to qualify you couldn't actually afford even that "affordable" rent. Low income mortgages the same way, where if you actually made an income low enough to qualify 75% of your pay would go toward mortgage. And then it's like, this is just a bunch of subsidies to criminals working the black market, while the middle class struggles and could actually use affordable housing, but since the mortgages can't actually be paid with that income, almost noone with an above the books job would apply.

Yppej

9-12-21, 4:16am

So which is it? You do trust a government run universal healthcare system to give you advice and keep you healthy, or you don't trust government agencies at any level to give you trustworthy medical advice?????

But I do agree we need universal healthcare paid for by the government with the private insurance profit motive eliminated, and every patient should have the right to choose a different doctor/treatment if they're not happy.

I am pro choice. No one should be forced to utilize government health care but it should be available. In Britain there is a parallel private system people can use if they want to.

Eliminating the profit motive would increase confidence in vaccines. I have heard many, many people express skepticism about them, stating they are just a way to make pharmaceutical companies rich, especially with continual boosters possibly on the horizon. But I have only heard one person express the idea that some sort of tracking device will be implanted under the skin so the government can follow him. So I think there is a lot more confidence in government than in medical corporations.

I am also pro choice on masks.

GeorgeParker

9-12-21, 1:25pm

I'd worry a lot less that UBI will discourage work per se, an overblown threat, as that it will encourage work under the table where no income ever gets reported, but that's hard to avoid. It may be unavoidable with any low income assistance program.The biggest reason for low income people getting paid under the table is it avoids them having Social Security withheld and they get their full (tax free) paycheck instead of having to wait till they file their income tax return to get a refund. Employers like it too because they avoid paying their share of the Social Security tax and unemployment taxes, etc.

Any income-based monetary assistance is going to encourage a certain amount of cheating by some people, but tax avoidance and the income restrictions for reduced rent, food stamps, etc that you mentioned are a much bigger incentive for people to get paid under the table and lie about their income.

GeorgeParker

9-12-21, 2:16pm

I am pro choice. No one should be forced to utilize government health care but it should be available. In Britain there is a parallel private system people can use if they want to.So, if I understand you correctly, you think there should be a government plan similar to Medicare-for-all, where free or low-cost medical care is available to everyone, but everyone is free to go outside of the system if they want to and can buy private supplemental health insurance if they want to?

I'm retired and on Medicare with a Humana Medicare Plus policy. I like the coverage and the simplicity of my Humana policy, and both the coverage and restrictions are just as good and sometimes better than the health insurance my former employer provided. The difference is, Medicare pays the insurance company a yearly amount equal to the average amount of medical expense that Medicare has to pay out per year for a typical Medicare recipient. The insurance company accepts that payment just as it would accept an ordinary insurance premium and handles everything just as they would with a regular health insurance policy. I can choose whichever insurance provider I want to based on benefits, size of network, restrictions, etc. and I pay nothing for the insurance except the regular monthly Medicare payment that I'd have to pay anyway.

Does that sound like something you would agree to put in place? Freedom to switch insurance providers. Freedom to switch doctors within your insurance plan. Freedom to request additional/different treatment options. Freedom to go out of network for treatment (with you having to pay a higher cost than in-network treatment). Everybody pays the same monthly fee. Everyone is insured whether they're employed or not. And employers don't have the expense and paperwork of providing subsidized insurance to their employees.

We don't agree, and will never agree, on mask or vaccine mandates or the effectiveness of either masks or vaccines, but maybe we can agree on some form of Medicare/Medicare-Plus for everyone.

Yppej

9-12-21, 3:50pm

Yes GeorgeParker I agree to an extent with you on health care. I like the idea of what Bernie Sanders calls expanded Medicare for all. It's expanded in that everything would be under one umbrella - medical, dental, vision, prescription drugs, etc.

Yppej

9-13-21, 6:28am

The system I described would only give money to households with less than $500 income per person per month. That is such a small percentage of the population that it wouldn't have any effect on cost of rent or anything else. And whatever "safety net" you have in mind would almost certainly put just as much money into people's hands, but at a much higher cost.

To be clear this is not Andrew Yang's plan. He would give money to everyone regardless of income. One of the models he looks at is the distribution of oil revenues to all Alaskans.

GeorgeParker

9-13-21, 2:11pm

To be clear this is not Andrew Yang's plan.No, it's not his plan. It's the plan I like best out of many possible plans.

The problem with giving money to everyone is basically the fact you're taxing people who have income, then giving some of the money back to them. Inefficient. If the UBI is funded by taxing companies or by distributing surplus revenue the state receives from oil leases or something similar, that would be better. But money is fungible, so wherever the government says the money for something is coming from, it is really coming from taxes and fees paid by everyone. Higher spending means higher taxes and fees. Lower spending, or better yet more efficient spending, allows reducing taxes and fees or at least not raising them as fast.

Yppej

9-13-21, 2:28pm

No, it's not his plan. It's the plan I like best out of many possible plans.

The problem with giving money to everyone is basically the fact you're taxing people who have income, then giving some of the money back to them. Inefficient. If the UBI is funded by taxing companies or by distributing surplus revenue the state receives from oil leases or something similar, that would be better. But money is fungible, so wherever the government says the money for something is coming from, it is really coming from taxes and fees paid by everyone. Higher spending means higher taxes and fees. Lower spending, or better yet more efficient spending, allows reducing taxes and fees or at least not raising them as fast.

Yang would fund it through a per click tax on ecommerce.