RC K9 Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 Anyone here like Andrew Yang? A lot of the stuff he says about Tech I believe is hard to argue with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 Anyone here like Andrew Yang? A lot of the stuff he says about Tech I believe is hard to argue with. He's very unique. He has a lot of ideas that haven't really been presented yet, at least not that I've seen. I really like the idea he had on eliminating lobbyists and giving everyone who can legally vote $100 "democracy dollars" to give X amount to whatever candidate's campaign they choose so the people can dictate the candidates power and not corporations (as much at least). The democrats can go one of two ways with this direction. Present someone more center leaning to have a real fighting chance or go off the grid with a socialist and lose even more voters. The choice is easy to me but we will see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 He's interesting. So far he's the only person talking about automation as a cause for unemployment that requires government intervention and solution. I'm not sure how he plans to pull of $1000 a month universal basic income, but my interest is piqued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 He's interesting. So far he's the only person talking about automation as a cause for unemployment that requires government intervention and solution. I'm not sure how he plans to pull of $1000 a month universal basic income, but my interest is piqued. Im indifferent about this as well but curious. My initial reaction was I don’t like it, but I need more information to determine my stance. If my net income is more than I make now, the country’s economy becomes better not just in the short term, but long term as well I could probably get behind this. I just need to research more on it or hear more info on it to determine that. He has very different views and ideas along with potentially real and feasible solutions for problems. He seems like at the moment the best candidate from the democrats but we will see as time goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 I think it takes more than ideas to be president. It's an executive job, I like Andrew Yang as a person but other than being a nerd and having run a $6 million dollar company, I don't have any reason to believe he has what it takes to manage a multi trillion dollar budget and/or build a political consensus to get any of his ideas executed. But I suppose we'll see how the primary shakes out. Maybe he'll impress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 9, 2019 Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 I think it takes more than ideas to be president. It's an executive job, I like Andrew Yang as a person but other than being a nerd and having run a $6 million dollar company, I don't have any reason to believe he has what it takes to manage a multi trillion dollar budget and/or build a political consensus to get any of his ideas executed. But I suppose we'll see how the primary shakes out. Maybe he'll impress. I’m willing to give him a chance. I like different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted March 9, 2019 Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 He's interesting. So far he's the only person talking about automation as a cause for unemployment that requires government intervention and solution. I'm not sure how he plans to pull of $1000 a month universal basic income, but my interest is piqued. Great idea paying somebody to do nothing,makes them proud of themselves I bet, and teaches them a great work ethic. your interest in how he will do this should concentrate on how much interest he will have on your paycheck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 10, 2019 Report Share Posted March 10, 2019 Andrew Yang @AndrewYangVFA I’d start fining gun manufacturers $1 million for each person killed by their weapons. That would get more companies focused on how to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do others harm. Okay, maybe this guy isn’t all that logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2019 Andrew Yang @AndrewYangVFA I’d start fining gun manufacturers $1 million for each person killed by their weapons. That would get more companies focused on how to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do others harm. Looking forward to this guy going after opioid manufacturers and hospitals/doctors who prescribe them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 10, 2019 Report Share Posted March 10, 2019 Looking forward to this guy going after opioid manufacturers and hospitals/doctors who prescribe them... :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2019 To clarify: I appreciate any politician trying to right a societal wrong through legislation and regulation: that’s what they are supposed to do while maintaining representation to their constituents. However, something like $1MM-per-gun-death is a little unrealistic, when there are far greater issues (like the opioid epidemic) that need the attention NOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 10, 2019 Report Share Posted March 10, 2019 As President, I will… Declare a state of emergency and seek to bring down both the overdose numbers and the addiction levels by 20% within four years. Quintuple Federal funding, from $4.5 to $20 billion per year directed toward addiction treatment and rehabilitation for addictive opiates at the local levels. Impose a new tax on opiate manufacturers to fund treatment and rehabilitation, retroactive to 2005. The drug companies will pay to treat the conditions they have profited from. The FDA should allow only doctors who complete specialized education in pain management to prescribe opioids for more than a few days. All states should limit the size of prescriptions and require all opioid prescriptions to be made from hospitals instead of individual offices/practices. Right now our prescription rate is 4 times higher than in Europe – we need to bring it down. Doctors need to tell more patients that they’ll feel better on their own without having to take opiates. There's more at the link. Of course whether or not these are good ideas is irrelevant because he's already doomed himself with his anti-gun ideas. Let's say his list of ideas to battle the opiod epidemic works beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and hundreds of thousands of lives are saved. But he also fines gun manufacturers for each death associated with one of their products. Would any of you accept that bargain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 10, 2019 Report Share Posted March 10, 2019 Just to clarify, I'm not saying anything about whether or not accepting that bargain is the right thing to do, it's all unrealistic anyway. I'm just saying, this is what you get with rookie politicians. You can't build a consensus if you immediately piss off half the country before you get started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 Would any of you accept that bargain? No. A large part of the opioid crisis is a societal mindset in this country. People have an expectation to be pain-free in all aspects of their life, both physical AND mental (take a look at our anti-depressant usage). They can't seem to handle anything on their own and seek an easy way out; a pill. I don't think throwing money at this problem is going to fix it. People know the risks and yet still continue to do it. You can blame the physicians all you want, but when your reimbursement is tied to your patients' pain control, you do what you must to earn your paycheck. Don't like that? Remove it from CMS reimbursement standards. Quit telling people pain is the 5th vital sign. I can promise you that physicians don't like prescribing them any more than you like hearing about them prescribing them. They don't get kickbacks from Big Pharma no matter what Facebook would have you believe. I'm not saying I have an answer to fix it. There is no easy answer. I think it has to start with the parents the moment a human is born. Actually, let's make that before a human is born because there is an alarming number of infants being brought into this world already addicted. I think it starts with toughening up the next generation. Get them used to adversity and 'pain' and managing life problems without a pill. People are so soft these days that they can't seem to cope with any stressor, let alone physical pain. Tough problem. Tough answers. Tough consequences. /random thought rambling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 No. Just so I understand, when you say "No," are you saying no to the actual hypothetical I laid out, where all of Yang's plans DO work as advertised to fix the opioid epidemic, thousands of lives are saved, but you have to accept some poorly thought out gun control measures? Because your random thought rambling seemed to be about how none of Yang's proposals will work, which wasn't an option in my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 No. A large part of the opioid crisis is a societal mindset in this country. People have an expectation to be pain-free in all aspects of their life, both physical AND mental (take a look at our anti-depressant usage). They can't seem to handle anything on their own and seek an easy way out; a pill. I don't think throwing money at this problem is going to fix it. People know the risks and yet still continue to do it. You can blame the physicians all you want, but when your reimbursement is tied to your patients' pain control, you do what you must to earn your paycheck. Don't like that? Remove it from CMS reimbursement standards. Quit telling people pain is the 5th vital sign. I can promise you that physicians don't like prescribing them any more than you like hearing about them prescribing them. They don't get kickbacks from Big Pharma no matter what Facebook would have you believe. A Large part of the opioid crisis is the makers of the drug LYING to Doctors, Lying to the Public, actively hiding the information that contradicted their narrative that it was non-addictive, and generally acting in bad faith with respect to the american public. the worst part was, the Bush Administration pretty much forgave Purdue Pharma back in 2007 by giving them a lenient settlement deal with respect to all these charges so the federal government is now very limited in how they can hold Purdue accountable for this situation. Oxy and it's generic versions are an effective pain medication, and sometimes there is a justified use for them. However, you can't expect to undo 20+ years of over prescription and abuse overnight just because the risks are known now, esp when that door should never have been opened in the first place. More and more people are refusing opioids, but it's hard to do when many institutions have built their policies, and procedures around the drug thinking it was safer than it was. As people in recovery and treatment programs have found, refusing the drug is very difficult when hospital and physician staff aren't always transparent about what is in the medications they are prescribing, or are too overworked to look carefully enough at a patient's chart that states they are refusing opioids. none of this has anything to do with patients expectations of pain, but it has everything to do with patients expectations that their physicians and treating healthcare professionals act in their best interest. You pay a dr for their advance knowledge and at some point you have to put trust and faith in their actions - but how do you do that when they have been lied to too, and their protocols have been built on those lies and aren't changing fast enough? The healtcare industry is as big a victim in this as the patients - and it starts with holding Perdue and the Sackler Family accountable for their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 There's more at the link. Of course whether or not these are good ideas is irrelevant because he's already doomed himself with his anti-gun ideas. Let's say his list of ideas to battle the opiod epidemic works beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and hundreds of thousands of lives are saved. But he also fines gun manufacturers for each death associated with one of their products. Would any of you accept that bargain? I'd take that deal under certain conditions: 1) The original justice department recommendations of felony charges against the head of Purdue are seen through to conviction and sentencing (instead of being brushed aside by the Bush administration). Additionally, those charges are brought against he Sacklers, and many other higher ups at purdue. not only do these people need to pay society for their crimes, but case law needs to be established that there is a firm hand and low tolerance for shenanigans when it comes to people's health. 2) In any other industry, if a manufacturer, or an affiliated association, took steps to interfere with third party safety measures for their product, there would be fines and successful lawsuits that would keep that industry in check. If GM made it easier for their cars to be used in hit and runs that killed pedestrians, there would be no end to the legal trouble they would be in, and yet gun manufacturers have enjoyed this quasi immunity while doing the same thing. It's the law of the land that when there is a foreseeable and reasonable negative outcome for a product that we hold the industry that makes that product accountable for those outcomes as a way to give incentive to the industry to act appropriately without further legislation. We do this for EVERY single goddamn industry except firearms. You don't want your personal liberty infringed, you don't want any more gun control laws - well here is how you get that and still work to decrease gun violence. $1mm per incident is unreasonable since it would cause almost all the manufacturers to go out of business right away, and the gun lobby is too well funded and efficient to ever let it be held to the same standards within the law now that it has enjoyed this special status for this long, and that is what makes it unrealistic. But I don't think it is unreasonable to hold manufacturers and the industry as a whole to the exact same standards we hold literally every other industry to in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 I'm not sure how he plans to pull of $1000 a month universal basic income, but my interest is piqued. By taxing new tech. He states this could easily be paid for by taxing huge companies/big tech. I.E. Companies like Amazon, Tesla, Self-driving truck companies, etc. I probably won't vote for him because I don't like his policies on firearms and a few other topics, but I think it's hard to dismiss his foresight of big tech radically changing the work climate. Something like 3 million truck drivers on the roads right now. What happens in 20yrs when trucks are driving themselves? Same with retail. Heck, look how many kiosks and self checkout lines there are now and retail is the most widespread job there is currently. Need someone more to the right but with some financial/economic input from this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 By taxing new tech. He states this could easily be paid for by taxing huge companies/big tech. I.E. Companies like Amazon, Tesla, Self-driving truck companies, etc. See I get worried about that because it could have a chilling effect on innovation. Tesla, as big a hype machine as it is, I am not sure could survive a tax of this nature. Amazon is a juggernaut and probably could absorb this problem, but amazon has it's own problems that might see it's market getting smaller if forced to address it's conflict of interest (i.e. antitrust) problem with both owning the marketplace and competing in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 Amazon has paid fuckall in taxes for the last 2 years. That's a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 Amazon has paid fuckall in taxes for the last 2 years. That's a problem. ....and received billions in discounted shipping services through USPS. I get that bidness is bidness, and Amazon was a nice boost to USPS infrastructure...but they should've shut down that benefit a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 11, 2019 Report Share Posted March 11, 2019 Amazon has paid fuckall in taxes for the last 2 years. That's a problem. It's paid 0 federal income tax for the last two years, but it payed $1.2 billion and $957 million in state and local taxes for the last 2 years across all the states it operates. so yeah, it paid fuckall in federal taxes. But this was the same complaint with General Electric a decade ago, and has been going on for some time. Although, to be honest, the Trump Corp tax cut didn't help (and actually gave amazon a $129 million rebate in federal tax). http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019/ ....and received billions in discounted shipping services through USPS. I get that bidness is bidness, and Amazon was a nice boost to USPS infrastructure...but they should've shut down that benefit a few years ago. shut down the USPS? or just the discounted rates? I am with you on discounted rates, but not the USPS as a whole. Although we won't know because it's considered national security, I do believe the relationship was profitable for both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 See I get worried about that because it could have a chilling effect on innovation. Tesla, as big a hype machine as it is, I am not sure could survive a tax of this nature. Amazon is a juggernaut and probably could absorb this problem, but amazon has it's own problems that might see it's market getting smaller if forced to address it's conflict of interest (i.e. antitrust) problem with both owning the marketplace and competing in it. See, I don't know how much it would affect innovation because as he states, those companies are going to see a chunk of that going right back to them because what do people do when they have money? They spend it? I'm not going to lie, I buy a TON of stuff from Amazon. Put an extra $1,000 in my pocket per month, yeah, a chunk of that is most likely going right back to Amazon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 See, I don't know how much it would affect innovation because as he states, those companies are going to see a chunk of that going right back to them because what do people do when they have money? They spend it? I'm not going to lie, I buy a TON of stuff from Amazon. Put an extra $1,000 in my pocket per month, yeah, a chunk of that is most likely going right back to Amazon. The problem with the big tech companies is that they are big companies, and therefore enjoy all the same tax dodges and loopholes that other big companies, like GE in the past, take advantage of to avoid paying their fair share. I don't think we need to "single out" the tech industry to tax when what really needs to happen is to close some of those exemptions, dodges, and loopholes, and have the entire large corporate sector actually start paying into the system. But I don't know that any politician in any party is going to say or do that since they all accept donations from the very companies that lobbied for those exemptions in the first place. We don't need NEW taxes singling out a specific group, just fix the old tax system that allows Amazon, Priceline, International Paper, General Electric, Ryder, and pretty much the entire energy sector (including AEP) to avoid paying into the tax system. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html BTW, we could have a whole conversation about the energy sector alone that is granted an exclusive monopoly by the gov't, allowed to operate as a for profit, and gets a tax exemption on top of it. If they are going to operate as a monopoly, then convert the companies to not for profit entities and then continue to avoid the tax structure while putting the power needs of the customer's first. Public utility and monopolistic for profit company aren't compatible concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 Kerry, thank you for that. No business should be give some special tax state. If were going to be all fair, then even non-profits or churches should be given discounts. Good or bad, were 21 trillion in the hole and alot has to be cut. Fun fact Kerry, I was up to 4 am from the community coffee. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.