ActualCornHusker

1) That's definitely fair. 2) Yes. That literally happens with every president who has ever been in the White House - with foreign powers as well as the rampant pay-for-play that's gone on for decades, probably longer...

Against corruption law or not, as evidenced by polling results, you'll have a hard time convincing people who aren't anti-Trump that what he did was wrong - because most people actually want to know what's up with Burisma.

With Andrew Yang bringing the idea of UBI (Universal Basic Income) to the forefront in his campaign, and with its appeal to people from a wide variety of political viewpoints, and since I didn't see a thread for this topic (Admins can merge if I missed it), I think it's relevant to start a discussion on UBI since it's one of a few economic ideas of Democrat candidates that doesn't completely suck. So I'd be interested to hear the viewpoints of others on this board. First off, the first time I really heard of Andrew Yang was on Joe Rogan's podcast, and I appreciated how he is able to speak on a variety of topics from an analytical perspective rather than trying to appeal to people emotionally too much. If you haven't watched his interview on Rogan's podcast, I'd definitely suggest viewing it, as well as his interview with Ben Shapiro on his Sunday Special (regardless what you think about Shapiro - it's irrelevant to this). Both those videos are at the bottom of this post. Like he says, UBI (or some form of it) has been advocated by people who represent all political viewpoints, and it's generally a non-partisan issue. I disagree with many of the claims he makes, and I feel that many of the ways he presents the issue of UBI are intellectually dishonest. Here would be a list of pros & cons as I see it: Pros: -An extra $1000 a month would allow a lot of people who are struggling to get by or who are at or below the poverty level to get a leg up -Little administration - instead of having to monitor how people spend the money like those on food stamps or other gov programs, people are free to spend it how they choose. -The economy would likely get a nice boost, as millions of people will be spending more money on a monthly basis -It would not de-incentivize work as much as conventional welfare, as it wouldn't get yanked from them once they start earning money -People who are laid off or leave their jobs wouldn't need to be in as big of a rush to find a new job, and they hopefully wouldn't be forced to take the 1st job available *There are a lot more pros that allow more people freedom of choice, which is very appealing to libertarian minded people like myself. Many more pros are laid out by Yang in the videos below Cons: -Price tag. He estimates the cost at $1.8 Trillion (which is ON TOP OF current welfare programs, as he doesn't propose eliminating any current programs) which is probably low-balling the actual amount -How to pay for it. Yang proposes VAT (Value Added Tax) which is essentially a fancy marketing term for a national sales tax. He sells it by claiming that giant tech companies will be the ones paying for it, which is one of the major parts of his pitch that is intellectually dishonest. VAT would be added to every purchase you would make on Amazon, etc. That means that you, the consumer, would be paying extra for all the purchases that you're making in order to subsidize the dividend that you're collecting. It would not shave any profit off the tech companies (or very little if any) -Subsidizing high income earners - I don't see any reason why an individual who already makes a sizable income should also collect the dividend. If the policy is about helping people who are less fortunate, then it should be just that. -Yang proposes $1000/month/person. What's to stop the next person from increasing it to $2000? Or $5000? There's got to be some sort of limit on it (maybe a % of median income, or % of minimum wage full-time earnings - just ideas) ***My verdict - I appreciate that Yang brings forth a unique idea, but I can't support it how he's representing it. If we were to structure it instead as a negative income tax (like Milton Friedman advocated), as well as replace many of the current welfare programs, THAT would be an idea I'd get behind 110%. What say you?

Im hoping Auburn just takes care of this issue for us. And hopefully Utah takes care of business

Imo Jojo just played his worst game. Got beat several times in coverage and whiffed a sack as a free runner.

We're already past the point of fiscal destruction in this country

Paul Finebaum write that article?

Laker fan, oh boy LOL. The Lakers are definitely loaded this year, but I've just never been a huge fan of Lebron. I respect his career accomplishments, but I REALLY don't want to see him win the title.

NU - 44 MU - 27 Rush - 285 Pass - 253

Draymond is the only one playing who was even on any of those finals teams, and he didn't play either vs the Mavs. Next year they'll be back in contention when/if Klay and Steph are healthy, and they'll likely reload their supporting cast (might trade D-Lo)

You're allowed to have your own opinion on the matter. I already said I'm not against universal health care (I used to be vehemently opposed), but there are a ton of questions that need to be answered, some of which I listed earlier. And even with universal healthcare, as has been pointed out, there are a LOT of different models within that realm. Not thinking things through and jumping in head first is likely to end up badly...

I laughed. But my point stands

No, but if there are 2 hospitals similar distance away (or more than 2) and their prices are disclosed, my family could choose to go to the one where the heart surgery is cheaper. Or conversely, if the more expensive hospital is better known for quality of care, I could choose that one instead. NOTHING is transparent, and that's a huge problem, is it not?...

Not what I did, so don't lump me into that group

I've said multiple times that our current system is the worst of all possible options, and it's far from an actual free market. It's over-regulated, over-protected, over-lobbied, etc. The high prices of our current system are due to lack of transparency in pricing and cronyism due to the government being too involved. The true results of an actual free market don't lie. LINK

I hear you. However, US companies are also responsible for a majority of the medical advancements through their investments in R&D. What happens to that segment of healthcare in this country when much of the profit incentive is taken away? Would you expect R&D to stagnate some?

The conversation of healthcare is far more complicated than it's being posed by either side... Please see my latest post. There are a TON of questions to ask before you just jump into support of a certain policy, especially one of this magnitude. The biggest question might be: Do you trust the government to run such a complicated system? Given the evidence that medicare and social security are insolvent, the post office and DMV are horrendously run, and the hundreds (thousands) of examples of governmental abuse of taxpayer money, I apologize if it's not super appealing to me to hand MORE power and taxpayer money to the government...

Healthcare is a complicated deal for sure, and it's definitely a major problem that medical bills (I'm pretty sure) are the leading cause of bankruptcies in the US. A lot of those problems could be solved without resorting to universal healthcare, but it just looks like an issue that people are getting behind more and more, and it's probably going to happen eventually. So here would be my thoughts on the matter, and I'd love a quality discussion on it: 1) There's no reason to do away completely with private insurance like Bernie & Warren are advocating. There's no reason to not allow someone to purchase private insurance if they choose to do so, even if it's supplemental. 2) The biggest contention I have with universal healthcare is that the government as a general rule sucks at everything, and on top of it being bureaucratic, inefficient, and incompetent, it's also very subject to abuse, fraud, and corruption. 3) Going along the same lines, giving government control of a good or service also gives the government power to ration that good or service. Reviews from almost every country with universal healthcare are that it results in slow service and long wait times. Additionally, the government would have the power to approve or deny what doctors, clinics, etc that people are allowed to go to. How would the process of approval work? And would clinics that don't get approved be shut down, or would they be able to operate privately and outside the public health sector? Would the universal healthcare also cover alternative methods of treatment, or would they limit it only to the pharmaceuticals that are approved by congress (which access undoubtedly would be bought and paid for) 4) One thing that proponents of universal healthcare either don't understand or intentionally ignore is that the incentive of profit in healthcare results in world-leading investments in R&D for new drugs, procedures, and technologies. How would universal healthcare not severely slow down the development of newer medical goods and services? Those are just a few major sticking points, and there's complexity in healthcare far beyond what we're all aware of as well. And I haven't even asked yet how the government would collect enough taxes to pay for everyone without being in a deficit... Do people really trust politicians and bureaucrats to handle all this effectively?

OH HEY! We agree on something! See, we're making progress

That last paragraph hit the nail on the head of my point. Thank you. You got it. And as a libertarian minded person, I tend to disagree more with Republicans on social policy but disagree with Democrats mainly on fiscal policy - so with this forum admittedly having a lot of Democrats, most of the disagreements are on fiscal policy, thereby prompting @knapplc to call me far-right the meaning of which has been distorted anyways... And yes, I'd agree it's fear mongering to label public services as socialism - which is odd because in the next breath, many Republicans will defend the VA and Social Security. It's funny to watch.

I agree. I never called those specific things "socialism." - was just responding to Frott Scost on Bernie

I agree, too much attention has been put on the word socialism itself.