According to their minds the government stimulus isn't a problem because Keynes = bad.

I mean with the proposed VAT yea... you can.

Surely you wouldn't be as obnoxiously arrogant as to dismiss his proposal without looking into how he costs it?

There's not gonna be room for debate here. Pretty sure Santara doesn't support most current social welfare programs we already have.

At least not unless the debt is gone or the US is on a budget surplus.

This post was edited by sir_lance_bb on Mar 9 2019 09:22am

Well then he's farther right than most Republicans. Even they see the positive effects of the dividend in Alaska and support it. No reason why it can't be rolled out across the country with the VAT supporting it.

Kinda pointless as that’s not even really a livable wage...

Also who’s going to pay for that ...LOL

USA in already enough debt

this is a post only someone with a low IQ could make

The point of the dividend is not to replace a job. But to help people in their current situation. If you work full time and make 20-30k a year, an extra 12k a year helps you potentially stay above living paycheck to paycheck and potentially increases people's ability to save money or explore other opportunities or pay off other debts and would also be spent to have the economy boosted.

Since the dividend will already take into account other assistance being received , this primarily will impact people who already work full time.

It would probably raise aggregate expenditure tremendously. More people will spend than save. For me it would go right into crippling student loans that costs as much as having another two bedroom apartment.

Well the best predictor of the effects is the situation in Alaska. Yang claims that 'The petroleum dividend there has created jobs, improved children’s health and has reduced income inequality'. I don't know how accurate this statement is... but it's worth looking into.

This post was edited by Scaly on Mar 9 2019 09:57am

Just how much welfare state do you think there is in the overall $4 trillion budget that can be cut to offset the addition of $3.8 trillion in new spending? Simplistic? Are you kidding me? Maybe we'll just cut out all Social Security (plausible in this scenario), Medicare and Medicaid (not plausible) and the entirety of the federal discretionary budget to cover it?



No, we can't. If raising an additional $3.8 trillion in revenue was SO FUCKING SIMPLE, don't you think we'd have balanced a budget already? What you don't grasp is our ability to draw revenue from the economy. No matter where rates are set, or what outputs are taxed, the federal government historically has been able to pull 17-19% of GDP out of the economy. We're already spending closer to 25%.