New Dem Proposed Policies- the Good, The Bad But Fixable, The Ugly

[TGHusker]

26 minutes ago, SandhillshuskerW said:

This is the main one that just makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I have taught for 19 years and I have seen 16 year olds up close for many years. They are absolutely not ready to make a choice like this yet. I know that there are immature, uninformed people of all ages but I just think this would be a terrible idea. Most 16 year olds are struggling with who they are going to prom with and other high school related issues. This would lead to politics bleeding in to high schools all over the nation and lead to a lot of teachers sharing their opinions more with students. I can't speak for all schools, but our teachers all do a great job of teaching kids about politics rather than trying to teach them about which party they are in favor of. 

Good points and common sense.  Makes one wonder about the lack of common sense & motives of those voting for this measure. 

[methodical]

1) yes, although I don't know enough about every aspect of it, but support the idea in general.

 

2) Yes, because the court doesn't reflect the country when you stack it one way or the other.  It should be balanced, and attempts to skew it either way are wrong.  Actually historically we've had both more and fewer judges on the court.  Nowhere is 9 set in law AFAIK.

 

3) yes, the electoral college is just a plain old dumb Idea.  My vote should count the same in Nebraska or New York.

 

Edit: I mixed up looking at the poll and the post below it with the voting age thing.  So here's my thoughts on lowering the voting age.

no, 16 year olds aren't fully formed adults and they don't really have any idea what their actual political views are. 99% of them probably just parrot their parents or friends political views to fit in.  Also how many do you think would hear something like "if you want help paying for college in a couple years you'll vote for X" from a parent? It's asking for problems.

[MNBigRedNorth]

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

In most states yes but in Nebraska it does go by district. I'm pretty sure Wisconsin recently passed legislation to divide their EC votes up like Nebraska(and Maine) does. Wisconsin made a huge difference in the 2016 election if I remember correctly. Popular vote was for Clinton but EC votes went to Trump.

No Trump won the popular vote

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, MNBigRedNorth said:

No Trump won the popular vote

I've already been corrected but thank you. Pretty sure Wisconsin has the EC set up by district via policy enacted in 2013 which is not a good or fair set up imo.

[MNBigRedNorth]

1 hour ago, SandhillshuskerW said:

Like I said, I can't speak for all schools, but the schools that I have been involved with have always done a great job of staying unbiased when it comes to politics.

I'm glad to hear that.  My wife taught English and Journalism for 20 years in western Iowa and she said the same thing, but she has been retired due to her health for the past 20 years and was not sure just how much this has changed.  I know there are always bad apples out there both ways!

[Nebfanatic]

http://time.com/5528621/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income/

 

Another interesting policy to discuss. UBI is usually considered a far left policy but when described by Yang and a few others I have heard it seems like it will be a neccesity. When fast food and trucking go completely automated, that is going to put alot of stress on people. Yangs proposal for UBI would be funded by savings companies realize due to automation. Not a bad plan if you ask me and the one thing Yang reconizes is UBI is not answer, simply one solution to a problem that is going to arise. People have asked Yang "what do you think people are going to do with that money?" And his answer is "I don't know man, thats the question of our time, isn't it?" 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

http://time.com/5528621/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income/

 

Another interesting policy to discuss. UBI is usually considered a far left policy but when described by Yang and a few others I have heard it seems like it will be a neccesity. When fast food and trucking go completely automated, that is going to put alot of stress on people. Yangs proposal for UBI would be funded by savings companies realize due to automation. Not a bad plan if you ask me and the one thing Yang reconizes is UBI is not answer, simply one solution to a problem that is going to arise. People have asked Yang "what do you think people are going to do with that money?" And his answer is "I don't know man, thats the question of our time, isn't it?" 

 

For UBI to be a viable thing, there would have to be a revenue generator that is entirely independent of a human workforce. The money to pay me and you and everyone else a free salary has to come from somewhere.

[MNBigRedNorth]

The Green New deal is an absolute joke.  Anyone in the their right mind that thinks we can control our climate, has to have a god complex.  Our climate is controlled far more by the sun than us meager little humans.  Don't take this statement to say we should be responsible users of our natural resources and keeping our environment clean.  

[Nebfanatic]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

For UBI to be a viable thing, there would have to be a revenue generator that is entirely independent of a human workforce. The money to pay me and you and everyone else a free salary has to come from somewhere.

Well thats exactly the idea. With industries like fast food and trucking in line for fully automated work forces the idea is to tax those industries for this move, as well as taxing tech giants that have been tax exempt. 

[Nebfanatic]

4 minutes ago, MNBigRedNorth said:

The Green New deal is an absolute joke.  Anyone in the their right mind that thinks we can control our climate, has to have a god complex.  Our climate is controlled far more by the sun than us meager little humans.  Don't take this statement to say we should be responsible users of our natural resources and keeping our environment clean.  

We can't control the environment but we can surely control our impact on it.

[MNBigRedNorth]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

For UBI to be a viable thing, there would have to be a revenue generator that is entirely independent of a human workforce. The money to pay me and you and everyone else a free salary has to come from somewhere.

That's for sure.  These ideas are always pie in the sky.  Show me the money first, not after it's been spent!  this idea is nothing more than a policy to buy a vote! if it were to be law of the land, I can see each politician out bidding each other to see who could give out the most! 

[knapplc]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

Well thats exactly the idea. With industries like fast food and trucking in line for fully automated work forces the idea is to tax those industries for this move, as well as taxing tech giants that have been tax exempt. 

 

But it has to be universal. Automation has to take over everything, including service industries, farming, etc, or it won't work. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

If it does, and the robots are able to do everything for us, then I suppose we'll  live in Utopia.

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

But it has to be universal. Automation has to take over everything, including service industries, farming, etc, or it won't work. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

If it does, and the robots are able to do everything for us, then I suppose we'll  live in Utopia.

Until they turn on us...

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, MNBigRedNorth said:

That's for sure.  These ideas are always pie in the sky.  Show me the money first, not after it's been spent!  this idea is nothing more than a policy to buy a vote! if it were to be law of the land, I can see each politician out bidding each other to see who could give out the most! 

 

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

But it has to be universal. Automation has to take over everything, including service industries, farming, etc, or it won't work. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

If it does, and the robots are able to do everything for us, then I suppose we'll  live in Utopia.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Yangs plan seems pretty viable to me...

[knapplc]

So he's not proposing a full income, a replacement for a job's income, he's proposing something supplementary.