Democratic Primary

[darb72]

Trump will not be re-elected. Whatever lunatic wins the Democratic primary will become President. Too much fake news bullshit put out by the MSM. The Democratic Party will get its wish and the United States will become a 3rd world country. The irony here is that these Hollywood morons who said they would leave the country if Trump was elected will actually leave the country once the Liberals take control, as our country will be a total cesspool.

Nah, Trump will win. He's not popular, but when democrats start saying they want to take away private health care they'll lose union support. Right now MSM is covering for them, but people are going to learn how incredibly bad democrat policies are.

[wickedsolo]

Military is a good point. The apprenticeships definitely help if you can get accepted. I wish schools did a better job presenting the array of options out there.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Me too.

I’m of the same mindset that Mike Rowe believes in.

Not everyone needs a college education to make a living in this world. There are lots of excellent trades out there that pay a lot of money and are highly rewarding careers.

High schools do a piss poor job of discussing these options with students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blah3]

Well I don't have the links with me, but it's the opposite of trickle down economics. with trickle down, you're betting that if you give the tax breaks, money/bailouts to wall street and big business, it will create new jobs and spur economic growth way beyond the money initially invested.

With the UBI, you essentially are betting the opposite in that if you give the money to the citizens, they will spend more, which increases the velocity of money, and creates more jobs, and lifts the economy way more than what was initially invested (2 trillion).

There are numerous studies that suggest that there would be a 10-12 trillion dollar return on investment over the years, but it is just a hypothesis, as it hasn't been tested nationwide yet. I personally believe that is what would happen, but I definitely couldn't knock you if you felt the opposite.

I don’t quitknow why you are lumping bailouts with tax cuts. Actually you sound like the typical talking point of ‘giving money to the rich’. Govt is not givin money to the rig.
But to your basic point, yes tax cuts will be help the economy than UBI. You are simply going to get more efficient flow of money if you let people keep more of their money and let them put it back in the economy than if you insert an giant govt middle man taking someone’s money and then distributing it to back out to people.

[blah3]

I don't approve of Obama spying on people either. Saying Democrats did this or Obama did that is just a way of changing the subject. I never even voted for Obama.

One of Trump's main selling points for "the wall" is that he thinks it will stop drugs from being sold here in the US. The drug war is a big deal because it is being used to justify mass incarceration here in the US. We have more people in jail/prison (per-capita) than any other developed nation. Even though from what I can tell, most Republicans don't believe the government should be telling people what's OK to put in their body.

Whether you believe white supremacy and domestic terrorism is on the rise is up to you, but people who fight white supremacists are now being considered terror suspects. "Antifa" is not a group with meetings or a leader or a cohesive agenda. It's a bunch of losers who get together and fight other losers. I don't support them but I found it telling that they were singled out as a potential terror organization by Trump while the other side, Nazis and white supremacists, weren't. It sounds like he's worried that these guys are beating up people that support him.

I agree that a lot of this stuff has been going on for a long time. My point was that Trump isn't really improving the situation. I don't believe that kicking Trump to the curb is going to magically fix all of this stuff. He's just a symptom of a disease that goes much deeper.

You don’t see the disagreement between the beginning and end of your post. You want to blame trump at the beginning but then admit the problems have been goin on long before trump. It’s blaming the guy you don’t like.
Im curious as to why you oppose the wall. Because earlier in this thread you lamented how people being replaced by automation are struggling, yet seem to have issues with policy designed to reduce the number of people with low skills, illegal immigrants, takin jobs from those poor workers getting replaced by automation.
Oh and as for the drug war, sentencing reform has happened more under trump than previous administrations. But you won’t give him credit for that. You also won’t place blame at the democratic black caucus who was a main driver for the harsh sentencing for drugs you seem to be so against. Oh and the overdose rate to opioids has gone down for the first time in a decade. Against you won’t give trump credit for that but have no trouble assigning him blame

[darb72]

Well I don't have the links with me, but it's the opposite of trickle down economics. with trickle down, you're betting that if you give the tax breaks, money/bailouts to wall street and big business, it will create new jobs and spur economic growth way beyond the money initially invested.

With the UBI, you essentially are betting the opposite in that if you give the money to the citizens, they will spend more, which increases the velocity of money, and creates more jobs, and lifts the economy way more than what was initially invested (2 trillion).

There are numerous studies that suggest that there would be a 10-12 trillion dollar return on investment over the years, but it is just a hypothesis, as it hasn't been tested nationwide yet. I personally believe that is what would happen, but I definitely couldn't knock you if you felt the opposite.

UBI has proven to be a terrible idea every time its been implemented. You or someone else who fails to do any research is gonna point out that Alaska has a UBI, which would be a good point except it doesn't work like you think it does. The average Alaskan gets around 2k dollars a year thanks to the sale of natural resources, not taxing hard working people.


-It weakens the desire to work.
-It's unsustainable.
-Those who work will be required to fund it.

[wickedsolo]

UBI has proven to be a terrible idea every time its been implemented. You or someone else who fails to do any research is gonna point out that Alaska has a UBI, which would be a good point except it doesn't work like you think it does. The average Alaskan gets around 2k dollars a year thanks to the sale of natural resources, not taxing hard working people.


-It weakens the desire to work.
-It's unsustainable.
-Those who work will be required to fund it.

And those who constantly shout at the clouds over “equity” are only going to be even more angry over Yang’s UBI proposal when people making $100,000/year get the same $1,000/month UBI that someone making $35,000/yr makes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[darb72]

And those who constantly shout at the clouds over “equity” are only going to be even more angry over Yang’s UBI proposal when people making $100,000/year get the same $1,000/month UBI that someone making $35,000/yr makes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey, then we can get even more government involvement since that plan works out great every single time!

[Ortizer]

Me too.

I’m of the same mindset that Mike Rowe believes in.

Not everyone needs a college education to make a living in this world. There are lots of excellent trades out there that pay a lot of money and are highly rewarding careers.

High schools do a piss poor job of discussing these options with students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're too busy pushing everyone towards a 4 year degree. I also am of that mindset. If your goal isn't something like engineering, medical, legal, or architecture, you can probably be better off without dropping 100k on a degree.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

[wickedsolo]

They're too busy pushing everyone towards a 4 year degree. I also am of that mindset. If your goal isn't something like engineering, medical, legal, or architecture, you can probably be better off without dropping 100k on a degree.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Even engineering, architecture, and legal don’t necessarily require (on a practical level) 4+ years of college and graduate programs.

Medial makes some sense - at least more than the others to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bandc]

The prob with Trades is actually a few.
First in trades that don’t currently require St license’s and also don’t require a lot of thought ( roofer, concrete work, dry wall hanger , land scapeing ) these jobs are filled by illegals because they work hard and cheap.
Second and this my be the biggest ...most kids , young people don’t wanna work hard for a living. No matter the pay level. I do “side” work from time to time and short of my sons or a few others I know ...can’t find a young guy who wants to learn and help. Yes they gotta work hard and do the “bull” work but I pay very well! Lol. My younger brother owns a small company ...he has a hard time finding people under 30 who wanna work. Kids don’t wanna get up before dawn. Work outside in the elements. It’s a culture problem. We’ve allowed schools to engrain in them the idea of a tech job or office job or anything that involves college.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with this

[bandc]

UBI has proven to be a terrible idea every time its been implemented. You or someone else who fails to do any research is gonna point out that Alaska has a UBI, which would be a good point except it doesn't work like you think it does. The average Alaskan gets around 2k dollars a year thanks to the sale of natural resources, not taxing hard working people.


-It weakens the desire to work.
-It's unsustainable.
-Those who work will be required to fund it.

-There have been no studies where UBI was implemented hat it weakened the desire to work, especially among the middle class. If anything I think it would allow people to do more of the work that they want to do.

-Studies show that UBI would increase GDP by billions because those who get the money would actually spend it. With increased GDP, it's easy to see the UBI paying for itself within 5 years

-Yes, that would be true, but EVERY study shows that in order to lose the benefits of UBI, you would need to be spending 10k - 12k per month in goods. Most normal people don't do that.

[bandc]

And those who constantly shout at the clouds over “equity” are only going to be even more angry over Yang’s UBI proposal when people making $100,000/year get the same $1,000/month UBI that someone making $35,000/yr makes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why this is way better than socialism. It's still capitalism. You still have to work to afford the lifestyle you want. 12k is still below the poverty line.

I think everyone that's in Yang's camp at this point recognizes that yea, everyone gets the money, but this policy will clearly disproportionately affects lower-income communities. For example, what change in lifestyle do people in the Beverly Hills community see after UBI compared to Parkville. The boost that you would see millions getting injected into local small communities would be tremendous, and I don't think anyone would be all too upset.