President Andrew Yang

[Speaker to Animals]

Not very well it doesn't, you're going to have to try harder than that.

No, you actually have to respond with an argument of your own if you disagree. You failed to do that.

Check again.

1) If divorced women can plunder UBI, why can't they plunder other forms of government wealth redistribution? Why not just include a law that the state can't assign the man's UBI checks to the woman, in case of divorce? That would solve that problem right there.

2) Even if it doesn't replace all welfare, it can replace some of it, and it does a better job of redistributing wealth, especially in the age of automation, than a minimum wage. UBI is nowhere near the worst wealth distribution scheme, and it's much better than many of the scheme's that government currently employs to redistribute wealth.

(1) They *will* plunder any and all forms of welfare. That's the consequence of enfranchising women. Derp. All welfare gets regeared to flow mostly to women.

(2) It won't replace any welfare. It will be in addition to welfare. 12,000 per year is not enough to live on. UBI cannot realistically replace welfare until it exceeds the costs of a basic cost of life, which for non-urban America is about 30k if you want a decent vehicle, healthy food, etc.

The problem is that the legal system in the United States is a pack of vultures feeding upon those who can't defend themselves. When a disabled veteran finally gets disability processed, for instance, the common experience is to have a wife waltz into court, demand full custody of the children in divorce, and then completely raid that fucking check, leaving him in abject poverty. You will see creditors going to court and demanding poor people's UBI get handed over to them instead. Poor people will be right back on the street, and we will need even more welfare just to get them back out of that mess.


You cannot fix these problems until you without exception stop the raiding of other people for money. No more child support. No more alimony. No more creditors taking debtors for court. If they loan money and people can't pay them back, then boo hoo hoo. If I loan a corporation money in the form of a bond, I am unlikely to get that money back if the corporation goes bankrupt. I don't get to chase the executives in court and get their disability or UBI checks sent to me instead while they starve on the street.


You have to recognize the deeper problem here.

[StCapps]

(1) They *will* plunder any and all forms of welfare. That's the consequence of enfranchising women. Derp. All welfare gets regeared to flow mostly to women.

That isn't an argument that UBI is better or worse than other forms of welfare then.
/shrugs

(2) It won't replace any welfare. It will be in addition to welfare. 12,000 per year is not enough to live on. UBI cannot realistically replace welfare until it exceeds the costs of a basic cost of life, which for non-urban America is about 30k if you want a decent vehicle, healthy food, etc.

Doesn't have to replace it completely, but you can use it to get rid of a minimum wage, at the very least. If not, well America has money to blow, might as well blow it on stimulus that will actually work, instead of stimulus for the banks only.

The problem is that the legal system in the United States is a pack of vultures feeding upon those who can't defend themselves. When a veteran finally gets disabled, for instance, the common experience is to have a wife waltz into court, demand full custody of the children in divorce, and then completely raid that fucking check, leaving him in abject poverty. You will see creditors going to court and demanding poor people's UBI get handed over to them instead. Poor people will be right back on the street, and we will need even more welfare just to get them back out of that mess.


You cannot fix these problems until you without exception stop the raiding of other people for money. No more child support. No more alimony. No more creditors taking debtors for court. If they loan money and people can't pay them back, then boo hoo hoo. If I loan a corporation money in the form of a bond, I am unlikely to get that money back if the corporation goes bankrupt. I don't get to chase the executives in court and get their disability or UBI checks sent to me instead while they starve on the street.


You have to recognize the deeper problem here.

I am aware of the deeper problem and I am for addressing it. I just don't see how any of the arguments you are making show that UBI is a worse form of wealth distribution than other forms of wealth redistribution, all I see is you pointing out that UBI would have many of the same problems as other welfare programs, as if that is somehow proof that it would be worse, not a very good against UBI dude.

Didn't you used to be for UBI anyway? No you're against it because divorced women might get it in a settlement? That's hardly a very good reason to change your mind.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am aware of the deeper problem. I just don't see how any of the arguments you are making show that UBI is a worse form of wealth distribution than other forms of wealth redistribution, all I see is you pointing out that UBI would have many of the same problems as other welfare programs, as if that is somehow proof that it would be worse.

It's objectively worse because those problems I listed will result in little to no net positive effect. You will still need welfare to pick up the pieces. Handing out UBI checks to every American would be a green light to lawyers to go to town in court proceedings to rob the poorest Americans of those checks. Every married man out there would have yet one more reason for their wives to t-bone their entire lives in family court. The banks who hold the student loan debt -- trillions in debts -- would just take the UBI checks of Americans who are in debt for educations they cannot use because those same banks were part of the corporate effort to offshore American jobs and flood domestic labor markets with H1B labor.

It would have NO EFFECT on the people who need it most.

[StCapps]

I am aware of the deeper problem. I just don't see how any of the arguments you are making show that UBI is a worse form of wealth distribution than other forms of wealth redistribution, all I see is you pointing out that UBI would have many of the same problems as other welfare programs, as if that is somehow proof that it would be worse.

It's objectively worse because those problems I listed will result in little to no net positive effect. You will still need welfare to pick up the pieces. Handing out UBI checks to every American would be a green light to lawyers to go to town in court proceedings to rob the poorest Americans of those checks. Every married man out there would have yet one more reason for their wives to t-bone their entire lives in family court. The banks who hold the student loan debt -- trillions in debts -- would just take the UBI checks of Americans who are in debt for educations they cannot use because those same banks were part of the corporate effort to offshore American jobs and flood domestic labor markets with H1B labor.

It would have NO EFFECT on the people who need it most.

Sounds like every other form of welfare, that is not a case that it would be worse than other forms of welfare. If you make a law against UBI being taken in divorces, that would solve that problem very easily as well. People not spending their UBI wisely is not an argument UBI, it's not like the government will spend it any more efficiently to actually help people who need it the most.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am aware of the deeper problem. I just don't see how any of the arguments you are making show that UBI is a worse form of wealth distribution than other forms of wealth redistribution, all I see is you pointing out that UBI would have many of the same problems as other welfare programs, as if that is somehow proof that it would be worse.

It's objectively worse because those problems I listed will result in little to no net positive effect. You will still need welfare to pick up the pieces. Handing out UBI checks to every American would be a green light to lawyers to go to town in court proceedings to rob the poorest Americans of those checks. Every married man out there would have yet one more reason for their wives to t-bone their entire lives in family court. The banks who hold the student loan debt -- trillions in debts -- would just take the UBI checks of Americans who are in debt for educations they cannot use because those same banks were part of the corporate effort to offshore American jobs and flood domestic labor markets with H1B labor.

It would have NO EFFECT on the people who need it most.

Sounds like every other form of welfare, that is not a case that it would be worse than other forms of welfare.

You would still need existing welfare. It's worse because it costs trillions and you'd not have any effect on the poorest Americans, who would see their UBI checks plundered by ex-wives and banks. Do you not understand this??

It wouldn't replace any existing welfare at all.

[StCapps]

It's objectively worse because those problems I listed will result in little to no net positive effect. You will still need welfare to pick up the pieces. Handing out UBI checks to every American would be a green light to lawyers to go to town in court proceedings to rob the poorest Americans of those checks. Every married man out there would have yet one more reason for their wives to t-bone their entire lives in family court. The banks who hold the student loan debt -- trillions in debts -- would just take the UBI checks of Americans who are in debt for educations they cannot use because those same banks were part of the corporate effort to offshore American jobs and flood domestic labor markets with H1B labor.

It would have NO EFFECT on the people who need it most.

Sounds like every other form of welfare, that is not a case that it would be worse than other forms of welfare.

You would still need existing welfare. It's worse because it costs trillions and you'd not have any effect on the poorest Americans, who would see their UBI checks plundered by ex-wives and banks. Do you not understand this??

It wouldn't replace any existing welfare at all.

Like I said, even if it doesn't replace any existing welfare doing the job it's doing, far less efficiently, America has money to blow. UBI checks being plundered by ex-wives and banks is not a case against UBI, anymore than it's case against earning more money.

UBI doesn't address the underlining problems that you think are the most important, but neither does any other form of welfare, it's not designed to solve the problem you are talking about, they will have to be addressed with different methods, but that isn't a case against UBI.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you want to actually help poor people who actually need help..

Abolish all the income piracy by women. No more child support. No more alimony.

Abolish the ability of creditors to seize income. If creditors lend money to people who then cannot pay, then too fucking bad, man. They deserve to go bankrupt for mismanagement of capital.




There was a point where I was losing half a disability check to a woman who stole my child from me, refused to hand him over during visitation when she was ordered (with no consequences), and who did not have to account for the money she was taking from me when applying for food assistance, rent assistance, etc. But I couldn't account for the fact that this money was gone. So I didn't qualify for a God damned thing. That was the first time I had gone more than a few days without being able to eat. That was the first time I was literally homeless.

The welfare system we have right now doesn't work because most of the people who need it are MEN and the entire legal and welfare system is geared towards female privilege at our expense. How in the ever fuck do you think a UBI check is going to make that any better?

The people who need those checks the most are the easiest people to steal the check from by using the courts against them.

[StCapps]

If you want to actually help poor people who actually need help..

Abolish all the income piracy by women. No more child support. No more alimony.

Abolish the ability of creditors to seize income. If creditors lend money to people who then cannot pay, then too fucking bad, man. They deserve to go bankrupt for mismanagement of capital.




There was a point where I was losing half a disability check to a woman who stole my child from me, refused to hand him over during visitation when she was ordered (with no consequences), and who did not have to account for the money she was taking from me when applying for food assistance, rent assistance, etc. But I couldn't account for the fact that this money was gone. So I didn't qualify for a God damned thing. That was the first time I had gone more than a few days without being able to eat. That was the first time I was literally homeless.

The welfare system we have right now doesn't work because most of the people who need it are MEN and the entire legal and welfare system is geared towards female privilege at our expense. How in the ever fuck do you think a UBI check is going to make that any better?

The people who need those checks the most are the easiest people to steal the check from by using the courts against them.

Being for UBI doesn't mean being in favor of "income piracy by women and banks". You can be for UBI and against piracy, they are not mutually exclusive ideas that contradict each other.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you want to actually help poor people who actually need help..

Abolish all the income piracy by women. No more child support. No more alimony.

Abolish the ability of creditors to seize income. If creditors lend money to people who then cannot pay, then too fucking bad, man. They deserve to go bankrupt for mismanagement of capital.




There was a point where I was losing half a disability check to a woman who stole my child from me, refused to hand him over during visitation when she was ordered (with no consequences), and who did not have to account for the money she was taking from me when applying for food assistance, rent assistance, etc. But I couldn't account for the fact that this money was gone. So I didn't qualify for a God damned thing. That was the first time I had gone more than a few days without being able to eat. That was the first time I was literally homeless.

The welfare system we have right now doesn't work because most of the people who need it are MEN and the entire legal and welfare system is geared towards female privilege at our expense. How in the ever fuck do you think a UBI check is going to make that any better?

The people who need those checks the most are the easiest people to steal the check from by using the courts against them.

Being for UBI doesn't mean being in favor of "income piracy by women and banks". You can be for UBI and against piracy, they are not mutually exclusive ideas that contradict each other.

You cannot have a UBI until you end the piracy first. Sending out UBI checks to every American would just pull every shitty lawyer in the counties into the courthouse to work for banks and shitty women. For real, man. This would be a fucking bloodbath.

If you don't believe me, ask Fife in the morning.

[StCapps]

You cannot have a UBI until you end the piracy first. Sending out UBI checks to every American would just pull every shitty lawyer in the counties into the courthouse to work for banks and shitty women. For real, man. This would be a fucking bloodbath.

If you don't believe me, ask Fife in the morning.

You overblow the divorce situation, because of your personal connection to that situation. You can be for both UBI and against piracy, and you don't have delay implementation of one to implement the other.