Sanders is a cantankerous asshole that can't be bothered to join the team he wants to take full control of.
That several decades of caucusing and fundraising isnt joining the team but having a D next to your name on the chyron is really says it all.
Nah it's ideological purity bullshit. If we're on the same team admit you're on the team. If you don't wanna be on my team, cause you think you're better than the team don't try to take over the team.
Nothing says other people are too concerned about purity like complaining about Bernie Sanders technical party affiliation.
He's pretty nakedly an ideologue.
That's again his entire fuckin brand right now.
It's the reason you're stanning so damn hard. Cause he's the only guy saying socialism.
You literally admitted you don't care if his plans are critically and recognizably flawed. Literally does not at matter to you. All you care about is that he's the guy saying socialism.
The reason he doesn't join the party ideological purity. If Warren was concerned with ideological purity sked still be an R.
I dislike ideological purity. The party hasn't been ideologically pure in about a decade.
Especially if he's trying to change the ideological underpinnings of the party, a thing we should do, he should admit he's part of the party.
Sleep youve demonstrated a fairly consistent pattern of badly misstating what people say and it woukd be exhausting to run theough all the ways youre doing it here again so Im going to pass.
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
That seems to be exactly what we'd expect for a democratic socialist who had to work with a center right party his entire career.
Partially, yes. But then many of his proposals, even in the vein of a radical, could've been much more legitimate. I.E. Even if he HAD the votes for some of his bank-breaking legislation it would've fallen flat on implementation.
Also, I don't want to over-slader Sanders. I admire that he's never cowered away from terms like liberal, progressive, or socialist in public (unlike numerous prior Dem candidates). Instead he’s managed to outline his own version of the script, and people buy into it. I just question his ability to deliver.
I think you're too dismissive of his cosponsored efforts.
I can only speak to examples where he "wrote the damn bill" when it comes to his ability to articulate legislative solutions. This is the bill I had my beef with: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1206/text
It basically asks the treasury secretary to remodel the entire financial sector. Now, SHOULD the sector be remodeled? Probably. Is it a good idea to punt that responsibility to an individual appointee in the executive with an arbitrary 1 year deadline? No. You have to restructure FINRA, for starters, and that ALONE is more like a 5 year job...
Honestly Im not terribly fussed about the practicality or lack there of of value signaling proposals. Its why I dont think there's much point to digging into Warren's proposals either beyond a surface level and why "she has a plan!" seems kind of silly to me.
This is the part where you said you don't care about the actual contents of suggested legislation so long as it virtue signals stuff you like.
Literally saying, I don't care if his proposed plans are thin or poorly thought out, he's virtue signaling things I like.
If that's not what you meant I'd love to hear what it means instead.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Cryptofacist effectively means "hasn't admitted to the fascism I know they hold in their heart".
The criticism of his UBI proposal stemmed from his proposal effectively working similarly to Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax, except possibly more accurately being a "Flat Negative Income Tax", in that it replaces the welfare state with a flat cash sum. Friedman's NIT would have been progressive rather than flat.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
Isn't that just the same situation we're in with Republicans, though? Like, people would still be using those services so there would still be a stink if someone tried to cut them. And liberals would still be opposed to cutting them because they're still providing benefits.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
Isn't any UBI going to be skipping straight to UBI? Is there like, a gradual way to introduce UBI?
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
Isn't any UBI going to be skipping straight to UBI? Is there like, a gradual way to introduce UBI?
I mean skipping all the work that goes in to taking us from our current neoliberal hellscape and into a society where UBI can flourish and not just be a way to make the poor a little quieter while they work to death.
He does say himself that he wants it to function as a way from getting people to enroll in welfare programs.
UBI in general is a good idea. Its actually one of the things I criticize Sanders on, but Yang's implementation of it is just trash.
Well yeah. Like, his idea is that if you would get more benefits than $1000 a month, you would choose to go with benefits instead of getting the UBI. But if you would get less than $1000 a month from benefits, you'd just switch over to UBI and get more than you would have.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
"Participated in some capacity" is not the same as "that's where his base is".
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
No offense but I don't believe this for a second - it is absolutely because you don't find Yang to be a credible leftist (which is fine) and suspect him of supporting UBI for crypto-libertarian reasons
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
No offense but I don't believe this for a second - it is absolutely because you don't find Yang to be a credible leftist (which is fine) and suspect him of supporting UBI for crypto-libertarian reasons
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
Isn't any UBI going to be skipping straight to UBI? Is there like, a gradual way to introduce UBI?
I mean skipping all the work that goes in to taking us from our current neoliberal hellscape and into a society where UBI can flourish and not just be a way to make the poor a little quieter while they work to death.
I guess I don't know how you get there? Assuming we do at all and also assuming we don't get there too late.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
this doesn't really have anything to do with his UBI plan though. this could be true of any UBI plan if you don't trust the motive behind the person proposing it
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
Isn't any UBI going to be skipping straight to UBI? Is there like, a gradual way to introduce UBI?
I think a good UBI plan would need other policies implemented to allow it to work. For example I think you would need to implement severe rent controls if not just outlaw private landlords to prevent them from sucking up the extra money they know people have now. I do think this is why some left wing people like Sanders prefer a jobs guarantee, personally I want both implemented.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
Eh we've kinda seen what "rich guy with no understanding of the functions of government" gets you for leadership... it leaves some things to be desired.
Vox has a really good article how Alaska's Permanent Fund (which is effectively a UBI) has both had good aspects (from a poverty standpoint) and some utterly horrific aspects in how UBI can be used as a political football where people who don't give a shit about telling the truth can use it to get elected and completely fuck things up.
While I do think that Yang has some value in that he's actually brought this conversation to the forefront which is something that is needed with increased automation, this is something that absolutely needs to be addressed and thought about in a post-truth society.
For decades, Hammond’s system was an unprecedented success. But in 2015, plunging oil prices created major shortfalls in the state’s budget. In response, then-Gov. Bill Walker deviated from the traditional PFD formula and reduced the value of the check for 2016. Doing so allowed the government to continue funding state services and ensured the sustainability of the fund. Instead of a check for $2,052, as they would have received with the traditional formula, Alaskans that year got a comparatively paltry $1,022.
In 2018, Republican state Sen. Mike Dunleavy saw an opportunity. Despite traditional Republican aversions to handouts, Dunleavy ran for governor on the campaign platform of increasing the PFD. He promised every resident up to $6,700, to make up for Walker’s cuts in 2016 and 2017 — though he was foggy on how the state could pay.
The result? Dunleavy won by a landslide.
The problem is that he now finds himself unable to fulfill his campaign promise without major cuts elsewhere. He’s now seeking to jettison other state commitments to health care, education, infrastructure, and other vital areas. After initially vetoing $444 million from the state budget, Dunleavy responded to the threat of a recall vote and walked back some of his more extreme line-item cuts. Still, the state will see no funding for public broadcasting, a 31 percent cut to its critical ferry system, $130 million from Medicaid, and $70 million from the University of Alaska system.
The PFD allowed Dunleavy to turn the governor’s race into a single-issue vote: Do you want a bigger check or not? The events in Alaska show that a UBI policy can have a dramatic effect on an economy — but it can also overwhelm all other governmental concerns and dominate politics.
...
To supporters of a UBI, the Alaska PFD offers a tantalizing glimpse of what a universal basic income can do. Thanks to the PFD, crippling poverty is scant in Alaska. A 2016 study by the University of Alaska found it reduced poverty up to 20 percent.
However, Alaskans’ finances are insecure in other ways. High unemployment (the highest in the country) and the astronomical cost of rural living meant that even voters who were concerned about the feasibility of Dunleavy’s $6,700 pledge voted for him anyway.
A couple thousand bucks might not sound like basic income, but for many rural Alaskans, a big PFD can mean the difference between a year of hunger and a year of plenty. In the end, Dunleavy’s $6,700 was an offer too high to refuse.
But on top of all the cuts he’s pushed, Dunleavy agreed on August 20 to the $1,600 PFD that was passed by the legislature — meaning Alaskans still won’t get the check they thought they were voting for, because contrary to Dunleavy’s campaign messaging, the governor does not actually hold the power to set the value of the dividend. (Only the legislature does.)
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
Eh we've kinda seen what "rich guy with no understanding of the functions of government" gets you for leadership... it leaves some things to be desired.
I'm not sure then what your position can be other than:
The system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
But the system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
Eh we've kinda seen what "rich guy with no understanding of the functions of government" gets you for leadership... it leaves some things to be desired.
I'm not sure then what your position can be other than:
The system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
But the system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
etc. etc.
I want someone that actually knows how the levers of the system actually work rather than someone trying to CEO their way through shit and command it from on high with no understanding of why that shit can't happen immediately. I want someone that actually understands the game I'm hiring them to play.
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
Eh we've kinda seen what "rich guy with no understanding of the functions of government" gets you for leadership... it leaves some things to be desired.
I'm not sure then what your position can be other than:
The system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
But the system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
etc. etc.
Fundamentally I think that running an effective government requires expertise. Not just any asshole can do it if they believe in themselves hard enough. We accept that people need training and experience for basically every job except being the one who gets to call the shots in government? That seems totally ass backwards to me. I want people who have experience and education to be the ones making choices on how to implement and craft policy.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Vox has a really good article how Alaska's Permanent Fund (which is effectively a UBI) has both had good aspects (from a poverty standpoint) and some utterly horrific aspects in how UBI can be used as a political football where people who don't give a shit about telling the truth can use it to get elected and completely fuck things up.
While I do think that Yang has some value in that he's actually brought this conversation to the forefront which is something that is needed with increased automation, this is something that absolutely needs to be addressed and thought about in a post-truth society.
For decades, Hammond’s system was an unprecedented success. But in 2015, plunging oil prices created major shortfalls in the state’s budget. In response, then-Gov. Bill Walker deviated from the traditional PFD formula and reduced the value of the check for 2016. Doing so allowed the government to continue funding state services and ensured the sustainability of the fund. Instead of a check for $2,052, as they would have received with the traditional formula, Alaskans that year got a comparatively paltry $1,022.
In 2018, Republican state Sen. Mike Dunleavy saw an opportunity. Despite traditional Republican aversions to handouts, Dunleavy ran for governor on the campaign platform of increasing the PFD. He promised every resident up to $6,700, to make up for Walker’s cuts in 2016 and 2017 — though he was foggy on how the state could pay.
The result? Dunleavy won by a landslide.
The problem is that he now finds himself unable to fulfill his campaign promise without major cuts elsewhere. He’s now seeking to jettison other state commitments to health care, education, infrastructure, and other vital areas. After initially vetoing $444 million from the state budget, Dunleavy responded to the threat of a recall vote and walked back some of his more extreme line-item cuts. Still, the state will see no funding for public broadcasting, a 31 percent cut to its critical ferry system, $130 million from Medicaid, and $70 million from the University of Alaska system.
The PFD allowed Dunleavy to turn the governor’s race into a single-issue vote: Do you want a bigger check or not? The events in Alaska show that a UBI policy can have a dramatic effect on an economy — but it can also overwhelm all other governmental concerns and dominate politics.
...
To supporters of a UBI, the Alaska PFD offers a tantalizing glimpse of what a universal basic income can do. Thanks to the PFD, crippling poverty is scant in Alaska. A 2016 study by the University of Alaska found it reduced poverty up to 20 percent.
However, Alaskans’ finances are insecure in other ways. High unemployment (the highest in the country) and the astronomical cost of rural living meant that even voters who were concerned about the feasibility of Dunleavy’s $6,700 pledge voted for him anyway.
A couple thousand bucks might not sound like basic income, but for many rural Alaskans, a big PFD can mean the difference between a year of hunger and a year of plenty. In the end, Dunleavy’s $6,700 was an offer too high to refuse.
But on top of all the cuts he’s pushed, Dunleavy agreed on August 20 to the $1,600 PFD that was passed by the legislature — meaning Alaskans still won’t get the check they thought they were voting for, because contrary to Dunleavy’s campaign messaging, the governor does not actually hold the power to set the value of the dividend. (Only the legislature does.)
I'm just guessing, but I'd wager that three of Alaska's top four industries are heavily seasonal (with oil probably having a seasonal uptick as well) and that people are on a permanent unemployment cycle because of it.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Prefacing this with saying I'm a Warren supporter so I don't get flamed or whatever for having bad opinions.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
Eh we've kinda seen what "rich guy with no understanding of the functions of government" gets you for leadership... it leaves some things to be desired.
I'm not sure then what your position can be other than:
The system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
But the system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
etc. etc.
Fundamentally I think that running an effective government requires expertise. Not just any asshole can do it if they believe in themselves hard enough. We accept that people need training and experience for basically every job except being the one who gets to call the shots in government? That seems totally ass backwards to me. I want people who have experience and education to be the ones making choices on how to implement and craft policy.
Also, hiring politicians who have no track record in politics leaves you extremely open to liars, charlatans, and surprises. Bernie may be an ideological outsider or a party outsider, but he has decades of recorded votes I can look at to see what he really stands for. Yang has some good positions, but how can I trust that he truly believes in them if he's never been in a position to put them into practice? I chose a plumber today on more evidence than that.
My primary issue with Bernie is when he gets asked how he intends to accomplish something and his response is "the people will rise up and demand it." That's not a plan, bud. He's real good at telling me why things suck but he's not great at telling me how he's going to fix it.
Has he ever said something so dumb? Is there a link?
To bring about real change we need a political revolution where millions of people stand up, fight, and demand a government which works for all of us—not just the 1%. And that is what my campaign is all about.
MADDOW: Senator Sanders, have you established a list of what it means to be a progressive that is unrealistic?
SANDERS: No, not at all. Here’s the reality of American economic life today. The reality is that we have one of lowest voter turnouts of any major country on earth because so many people have given up on the political process. The reality is that there has been trillions of dollars of wealth going from the middle class in the last 30 years to the top 1/10th of 1 percent.
The reality is we that have a corrupt campaign finance system which separates the American people’s needs and desires from what Congress is doing. So to my mind, what we have got to do is wage a political revolution where millions of people have given up on the political process, stand up and fight back, demand the government that represents us and not just a handful of campaign contribution — contributors.
SANDERS: Now all of the ideas that I’m talking about, they are not radical ideas. Making public colleges and universities tuition free, that exists in countries all over the world, used to exist in the United States. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and creating 13 million jobs by doing away with tax loopholes that large corporations now enjoy by putting their money into the Cayman Islands and other tax havens. That is not a radical idea.
What we need to do is to stand up to the big money interests, and the campaign contributors. When we do that, we can, in fact, transform America.
PELLEY: Every one of these ideas is dead on arrival in the Congress.
SANDERS: No it's not. Change always takes place when millions of people stand up and fight back. And what we are talking about in this campaign is a political revolution.
PELLEY: The Republicans in Congress are gonna say, "You go ahead and have your revolution, but we're not gonna have one here."
SANDERS: Ah, but the Republicans, for better or for worse, are gonna be draw into this revolution.
PELLEY: You're gonna change their minds?
SANDERS: No, I'm not gonna change their minds. The American people will change their minds.
So basically he's not only going to win but he's going to win over huge swaths of voters who will fundamentally change how politics works in the US. Its central to his candidacy. That's what he means by "political revolution." But where does he get those voters? That same he's argued for for decades. He thinks he can win over the elderly and working class whites especially men - the most socially and culturally conservative demographics in the country - by centering the Democratic party on economic issues and de-emphasizing social, identity and racial justice.
Why is it that two-thirds of white, rural men voted Republican? Why? That’s what we have to address. That’s crazy. These people are working longer and longer hours. They can’t afford to pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. They’re losing their jobs. So why do they vote for President Bush? And the Republican Party? We’ve got to address this…
What we have to do is knock on doors and go into communities where there are people who disagree with us on certain issues. And we have to talk to them. They’re our friends. They’re our allies. They’re our co-workers. We can’t see them as enemies. That’s easier said than done. All over this country you have progressive communities like Madison and Burlington, but we’ve got to go well, well, well outside of those communities. We’ve got to go to the rural areas. We’ve got to go where a lot of working people are voting Republican.
I do not know how you can concede the white working class to the Republican Party which is working overtime to destroy the working class in America. Of course we’ve gotta work with the African-American community and the Hispanic community and minority communities, absolutely, and I’m proud of my record on all of those issues.
But you can’t concede the white working-class community, which is hurting. You can’t concede the senior community. The idea that Democrats are losing among seniors when you have a major Republican effort to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is literally beyond my comprehension.
One cause for concern, Sanders explained to Schultz, was seeing many white, working-class voters in “low-income states” like Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina voting against their own best interest.
“These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues,” Sanders told Schultz. “They’re getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together: Defending Social Security, defending Medicare, making sure that Medicaid is not cut, that veterans’ programs are -not cut.”
....
“How are you gonna work with them?” Schultz asked Sanders. “They were ready to allow the United States government — our country — to default on its’ debt.”
“You make the case that maybe — just maybe — they might want to be listening to what ordinary Americans are saying in overwhelming numbers,” Sanders argued. “And not listening to the Koch brothers and other billionaires.”
He does say himself that he wants it to function as a way from getting people to enroll in welfare programs.
UBI in general is a good idea. Its actually one of the things I criticize Sanders on, but Yang's implementation of it is just trash.
Well yeah. Like, his idea is that if you would get more benefits than $1000 a month, you would choose to go with benefits instead of getting the UBI. But if you would get less than $1000 a month from benefits, you'd just switch over to UBI and get more than you would have.
The biggest issue with that is his UBI plan gets funding from a VAT. That's something that everyone, including the poorest, would have to pay. If you're on too much welfare to benefit from the UBI, then this results in a net loss for you, and that money is transferred to the lower middle class (in effect).
It needs to either get funding from wealth/income/capital gains in a progressive manner, or it needs to stack with welfare benefits. Doing neither is a non-starter.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
He does say himself that he wants it to function as a way from getting people to enroll in welfare programs.
UBI in general is a good idea. Its actually one of the things I criticize Sanders on, but Yang's implementation of it is just trash.
Well yeah. Like, his idea is that if you would get more benefits than $1000 a month, you would choose to go with benefits instead of getting the UBI. But if you would get less than $1000 a month from benefits, you'd just switch over to UBI and get more than you would have.
The biggest issue with that is his UBI plan gets funding from a VAT. That's something that everyone, including the poorest, would have to pay. If you're on too much welfare to benefit from the UBI, then this results in a net loss for you, and that money is transferred to the lower middle class (in effect).
It needs to either get funding from wealth/income/capital gains in a progressive manner, or it needs to stack with welfare benefits. Doing neither is a non-starter.
Yeah, I think a wealth tax would probably be the best way to pay for UBI.
He does say himself that he wants it to function as a way from getting people to enroll in welfare programs.
UBI in general is a good idea. Its actually one of the things I criticize Sanders on, but Yang's implementation of it is just trash.
Well yeah. Like, his idea is that if you would get more benefits than $1000 a month, you would choose to go with benefits instead of getting the UBI. But if you would get less than $1000 a month from benefits, you'd just switch over to UBI and get more than you would have.
The biggest issue with that is his UBI plan gets funding from a VAT. That's something that everyone, including the poorest, would have to pay. If you're on too much welfare to benefit from the UBI, then this results in a net loss for you, and that money is transferred to the lower middle class (in effect).
It needs to either get funding from wealth/income/capital gains in a progressive manner, or it needs to stack with welfare benefits. Doing neither is a non-starter.
Yeah, I think a wealth tax would probably be the best way to pay for UBI.
I think you need more middle class dollars than you can get with a wealth tax alone, presuming you want to keep the U part of the acronym.
That means either another payroll tax, or a VAT with an automatic increase attached to the UBI in the average amount of money you'd need to spend on the VAT to be at the poverty line; this effectively removes the VAT from anyone who can only afford poverty-line consumption. But you'd probably need some more safeguards to prevent some kind of spiral in times of economic emergency.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
He does say himself that he wants it to function as a way from getting people to enroll in welfare programs.
UBI in general is a good idea. Its actually one of the things I criticize Sanders on, but Yang's implementation of it is just trash.
Well yeah. Like, his idea is that if you would get more benefits than $1000 a month, you would choose to go with benefits instead of getting the UBI. But if you would get less than $1000 a month from benefits, you'd just switch over to UBI and get more than you would have.
The biggest issue with that is his UBI plan gets funding from a VAT. That's something that everyone, including the poorest, would have to pay. If you're on too much welfare to benefit from the UBI, then this results in a net loss for you, and that money is transferred to the lower middle class (in effect).
It needs to either get funding from wealth/income/capital gains in a progressive manner, or it needs to stack with welfare benefits. Doing neither is a non-starter.
Yeah, I think a wealth tax would probably be the best way to pay for UBI.
I think you need more middle class dollars than you can get with a wealth tax alone, presuming you want to keep the U part of the acronym.
That means either another payroll tax, or a VAT with an automatic increase attached to the UBI in the average amount of money you'd need to spend on the VAT to be at the poverty line; this effectively removes the VAT from anyone who can only afford poverty-line consumption. But you'd probably need some more safeguards to prevent some kind of spiral in times of economic emergency.
You could have the tax dollars that go towards unemployment insurance to work with.
You could also be working with other entitlements funds but unless you're means testing something that you call UBI then you're just transferring from poor to rich again.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Posts
This is the part where you said you don't care about the actual contents of suggested legislation so long as it virtue signals stuff you like.
Literally saying, I don't care if his proposed plans are thin or poorly thought out, he's virtue signaling things I like.
If that's not what you meant I'd love to hear what it means instead.
So what was the big argument against Yang here? I know someone called him a cryptofascist at some point, but I guess I don't really know what that is other than the fact that he sees cryptocurrency as a good thing. I've been looking at his platform and it seems fairly progressive. Medicare for all, green new deal, UBI w/ an option to keep current social programs instead, pathway to citizenship. The rest of it is fairly moderate progressive stuff, which isn't really as appealing as Warren, but also isn't really bad or anything. Is UBI just considered too fringe that he's not worth talking about?
His UBI plan looks like a trojan horse for killing welfare without filling the gap it would leave.
How?
Mostly it's where his notability and support comes from. As well as his complete lack of experience in legislative bodies. He's got a collection of decent ideas, but is seemingly totally fuckin out of his depth on the making it happen front. As well his support comes from some less reputable digital spaces.
Im simplfying here but basically you get the UBI, say everything else can safely be cut now, and people wind off worse off in total and you can then start winding down ubi benefits.
Cryptofacist effectively means "hasn't admitted to the fascism I know they hold in their heart".
The criticism of his UBI proposal stemmed from his proposal effectively working similarly to Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax, except possibly more accurately being a "Flat Negative Income Tax", in that it replaces the welfare state with a flat cash sum. Friedman's NIT would have been progressive rather than flat.
Isn't that just the same situation we're in with Republicans, though? Like, people would still be using those services so there would still be a stink if someone tried to cut them. And liberals would still be opposed to cutting them because they're still providing benefits.
Its what Id suspect of anybody who proposed skipping straight to UBI from where we're at now, especially when their background is as an "investment guy"
Not his exact words, but that was my take of his proposal
For the former, I'm not sure that should be disqualifying. And I am sure that is actually a positive point in his corner for many voters. Many of the same voters who liked the "Drain the Swamp" rhetoric.
For the latter, that is just something that will have to be dealt with (in the sense that American citizens who are heavily online can also vote) going forward. Many younger voters in the future will have likely participated in some capacity in "less reputable digital spaces".
According to his platform, Social Security stays (and would be a benefit in conjunction with the UBI) and he's advocating for Medicare For All.
Or as you can also call it "Even middle class folks will never fucking retire" plan
Come Overwatch with meeeee
He does say himself that he wants it to function as a way from getting people to enroll in welfare programs.
UBI in general is a good idea. Its actually one of the things I criticize Sanders on, but Yang's implementation of it is just trash.
Isn't any UBI going to be skipping straight to UBI? Is there like, a gradual way to introduce UBI?
Whoever was in charge of the control room and cameras at his first state of the Union was a genius.
I mean skipping all the work that goes in to taking us from our current neoliberal hellscape and into a society where UBI can flourish and not just be a way to make the poor a little quieter while they work to death.
Well yeah. Like, his idea is that if you would get more benefits than $1000 a month, you would choose to go with benefits instead of getting the UBI. But if you would get less than $1000 a month from benefits, you'd just switch over to UBI and get more than you would have.
"Participated in some capacity" is not the same as "that's where his base is".
No, but thanks.
I guess I don't know how you get there? Assuming we do at all and also assuming we don't get there too late.
I think a good UBI plan would need other policies implemented to allow it to work. For example I think you would need to implement severe rent controls if not just outlaw private landlords to prevent them from sucking up the extra money they know people have now. I do think this is why some left wing people like Sanders prefer a jobs guarantee, personally I want both implemented.
Eh we've kinda seen what "rich guy with no understanding of the functions of government" gets you for leadership... it leaves some things to be desired.
Well, we're like centuries away from that.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-permanent-fund-universal-basic-income
While I do think that Yang has some value in that he's actually brought this conversation to the forefront which is something that is needed with increased automation, this is something that absolutely needs to be addressed and thought about in a post-truth society.
Yeah, its why I prefer candidates who focus more on the steps to get us there.
I'm not sure then what your position can be other than:
The system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
But the system needs to be reformed
But you have to be a product of the system to get into the system
etc. etc.
I want someone that actually knows how the levers of the system actually work rather than someone trying to CEO their way through shit and command it from on high with no understanding of why that shit can't happen immediately. I want someone that actually understands the game I'm hiring them to play.
Fundamentally I think that running an effective government requires expertise. Not just any asshole can do it if they believe in themselves hard enough. We accept that people need training and experience for basically every job except being the one who gets to call the shots in government? That seems totally ass backwards to me. I want people who have experience and education to be the ones making choices on how to implement and craft policy.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm just guessing, but I'd wager that three of Alaska's top four industries are heavily seasonal (with oil probably having a seasonal uptick as well) and that people are on a permanent unemployment cycle because of it.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Also, hiring politicians who have no track record in politics leaves you extremely open to liars, charlatans, and surprises. Bernie may be an ideological outsider or a party outsider, but he has decades of recorded votes I can look at to see what he really stands for. Yang has some good positions, but how can I trust that he truly believes in them if he's never been in a position to put them into practice? I chose a plumber today on more evidence than that.
So basically he's not only going to win but he's going to win over huge swaths of voters who will fundamentally change how politics works in the US. Its central to his candidacy. That's what he means by "political revolution." But where does he get those voters? That same he's argued for for decades. He thinks he can win over the elderly and working class whites especially men - the most socially and culturally conservative demographics in the country - by centering the Democratic party on economic issues and de-emphasizing social, identity and racial justice.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It needs to either get funding from wealth/income/capital gains in a progressive manner, or it needs to stack with welfare benefits. Doing neither is a non-starter.
Yeah, I think a wealth tax would probably be the best way to pay for UBI.
That means either another payroll tax, or a VAT with an automatic increase attached to the UBI in the average amount of money you'd need to spend on the VAT to be at the poverty line; this effectively removes the VAT from anyone who can only afford poverty-line consumption. But you'd probably need some more safeguards to prevent some kind of spiral in times of economic emergency.
You could have the tax dollars that go towards unemployment insurance to work with.
You could also be working with other entitlements funds but unless you're means testing something that you call UBI then you're just transferring from poor to rich again.
Come Overwatch with meeeee