Tulsi Gabbard took on the primary UBI campaigning after Yang ran out of money and went to CNN, and floated a bill in congress very early into the CV19 panic. Crickets from the media about this, but lots of noise about other pols who subsequently stole a lot of the messaging and legal framework. As a Gabbard supporter I found this extremely irritating.
As a former Gabbard supporter I was shocked that she endorsed Joe Biden who has said he’d veto Medicare for All if it passed. To me that’s a much more direct impact on the COVID issue.
The rationale for Gabbard supporting - not endorsing - Biden was in part to short circuit the insane msm Russia/Assad/Modi smears and the 3rd party predictions. As the only lifelong Democrat in the field, Gabbard had legally agreed to support the DNC candidate, who is clearly Biden based on Sander's lamentable performance. Not the outcome I wanted but given that the media hid Gabbard this tees her up for another shot in 2024 when Trump leaves office.
This seems like a confirmation that the Democratic Party is run by a cabal of insiders who subvert the democratic electoral process to promote party leaders' preferred candidates. That didn't go so well for the Party in 2016.
Can you elaborate on "legally agreed". She was openly talking to lots of alternative media about the currupt establishment and how the DNC does not want her. She should "illegally" support Sanders or nobody. She would got lot of press for it. Super disappointed with her, there was also this Israel Gaza thing where she voted wrong and disappointed me already but I could let that slide. I will never put my hope into any politician anymore. The system is broken and even the outcasts who are, at least when they start out, for the people pathetically cave to it. Same for Sanders, he endorsed Hillary - pathetic!
Too bad UBI gives money to everyone indiscriminately, weakening the dollar that makes it to the hands of the needy. UBI should be a gradient-based income scheme for people below a threshold. Otherwise, we are conceding that "Billionaires will die without UBI" which is disingenuous and not true.
I’m trying to understand your point here. Weakens the dollar, sure, to some degree. I’m not understanding the “billionaires will die without UBI” part though.
It's a tongue-in-cheek statement to highlight the absurdity of giving money to everyone especially the affluent. Clearly, issuance of new currency must be done decisively, the point is that billionaires do not need UBI and therefore it should not be "universal." Giving money to all without "means testing" increasing the cost of the program by about 2x and reduces the benefit to the people intended to benefit. It does not delete the income inequality gap, but would simply displace it vertically without affecting the endpoints if everyone got an equal sum.
And are billionaires a meaningful portion of the populace or total payments? Or are you trying to both use means testing as a way of significantly restricting beneficiaries while still calling it “universal”?
The "universal" in "universal basic income" is what makes it undesirable because affluent people don't need money and giving it to them devalues money given to the needy, commodity prices spike when a fund is issued (like in Kuwait, they could not avoid it because when the supply of money increased commodity prices spiked up). While there are only 607 billionaires in the US, I was using the term billionaires as emblematic of anyone with a decent level of affluence. I do not think we should be striving for "universal" basic income because it turns into "universal" rampant inflation with diluted (= eventually zero ) beneficiaries
Many UBI proposals include a heavier progressive income tax or a tax on wall street. Even if UBI is given to everyone, the income stream weighs heavier on the more wealthy (or at least those paying more in taxes). Money is commutative, you can't just look at UBI in a vacuum without also considering the proposed sources of income to pay for it.
This ignores friction of money entirely. Let's truck fuel to the far ends of the empire only to truck it back. Plus, giving to all dilutes the value of the fund and concentrates wealth back into the hands of the affluent over time. "Money is commutative" nope money ain't math, ten dollars passed ten times among ten friends is $100 of GDP, that is not commutativity.
Guaranteed Income is raising the sea level of capitalism so that people start from $1000/mo. instead of $0/mo. That's not SS, that's changing the ambient conditions of capitalism.
18 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 47.4 ms ] threadChange my mind.
Strangely, I never hear Libertarians tell me that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek