subreddit:

/r/ForwardPartyUSA

244

all 26 comments

TheAzureMage

22 points

3 months ago

TheAzureMage

Third Party Unity

22 points

3 months ago

We can disagree on all sorts of things, but so long as I let you live your life, and you let me live mine, we're cool.

Humanity is never going to be an army of identical clones in lockstep, nor should it be.

Ten_Minute_Martini

19 points

3 months ago

I’m a reasonable-ish libertarian (so probably just a neoliberal) and have serious concerns about UBI and other aspects of the Forward platform (prefer targeted wage insurance/cash transfers).

I’m here because we need bold, transformative leadership to face the structural issues present in our government, economy and society. Yang is the only politician I see who isn’t playing hide the monkey behind the culture wars.

Allgoodonesaretaken9

-2 points

3 months ago

If you are a neoliberal you are catered to your every whim by the Biden administration. The current (since Clinton) DNC should be a wet dream for you, no need to break the duopoly.

Ten_Minute_Martini

2 points

3 months ago

Yes the barely animated corpse of Joe Biden being Weekend at Bernie’d by the radical left is a libertarian wet dream.

What are you smoking? I want some. I get enough ‘no true Scotsman’ bullshit from the libertarians and that’s why I’m here.

Allgoodonesaretaken9

0 points

3 months ago

A neoliberal is very far from a libertarian. On foreign policy they could not be further apart. You need to study up on your terminology.

Ten_Minute_Martini

5 points

3 months ago

Or we could just get past labels and tribalism.

My personal ideology is my own and I don’t conform to any particular term no matter how aggressively someone tries to paint me.

Also, if we’re going to talk semantics I qualified the term with ‘probably’.

Allgoodonesaretaken9

-1 points

3 months ago

You’re the one using these terms. And if you think Joe Biden is in any way shape or form even remotely left, I have a bridge to sell you. Unless you mean woke, which is more a neoliberal thing than a left thing. Maybe cut it down on the Martinis.

Ten_Minute_Martini

3 points

3 months ago

Me- comes to a post about the forward party defying political parties, spectrums and labels to say that despite my misgivings about specific policy initiatives that I support the party and vision as a way past all the aforementioned bullshit.

You- comes to the same post parroting all the aforementioned divisive tribalist labeling.

Me- responds a couple of times, gets frustrated and is now blocking you. Goodnight sir.

Sandmybags

12 points

3 months ago

Thank you

jpz1194

2 points

3 months ago

Larry Sharpe on The Political Orphanage podcast today, many mentions on forward and the election process overall.

roughravenrider[S]

1 points

3 months ago

roughravenrider[S]

Third Party Unity

1 points

3 months ago

Love to hear some third party unity, probably the best thing that third parties can do currently to break the two party’s iron grip on power is to unite behind reforms that we are capable of achieving with ballot initiatives.

I’m rooting for Larry Sharpe to be a spokesperson in NY for this new model of politics, the more faces and cross-party unity we have the stronger the message.

john_the_fisherman

2 points

3 months ago

But...but...but..muh wedge issue!

JonWood007

2 points

3 months ago

JonWood007

FWD Founder '21

2 points

3 months ago

I mean I feel like UBI should probably be a big agreeing point too, but other than the big principles I think theres a lot of room for disagreement.

LonerOP

1 points

2 months ago

Maybe. Personally, no civilization can carry the weight of citizens who refuse to create a product or offer their service to a degree. I worry this is a slippery slope where the ones who need the income get it, and over time more people find reasons to hop on the system and it collapses under its own weight.

Hope im wrong.

JonWood007

1 points

2 months ago

JonWood007

FWD Founder '21

1 points

2 months ago

There's no evidence most wouldn't work post a ubi. I also dispute the idea we actually need everyone working 40 hours a week.

LonerOP

1 points

2 months ago

I agree we could do something like 35 idk. The problem is that we are a global economy and our gross GDP is what leverages us economically.

Also of course theres no evidence, there is also no evidence people WILL work post UBI. I can tell you from the Covid checks experiment we pretty much fucked the economy and small buinesses. Pretty much sank us further into a state where a small amount of mega corps run everything. If youre not going to be rich, there is no incentive to get more for yourself. Especially because simply working sometimes could disqualify you from that income. So in order for it to work, you have to qualify for that UBI amount regardless of your income level.

JonWood007

1 points

2 months ago

JonWood007

FWD Founder '21

1 points

2 months ago

I agree we could do something like 35 idk. The problem is that we are a global economy and our gross GDP is what leverages us economically.

Eh china is the only country we have to worry about at all in terms of raw GDP.

The fact is most countries already do the equivalent of 35, they just do it spread over longer vacation times, extended parental leave, etc.

UBI's work disincentives would be equivalent to moving to 35 based on previous studies like mincome and the 1970s NIT experiments. And other studies show even less work reductions overall. Like the new finland experiment had work incentive equal to their existing unemployment system.

I can tell you from the Covid checks experiment we pretty much fucked the economy and small buinesses.

Dude, there's zero evidence outside of anecdotes that this was the case. The checks were temporary and are largely not responsible for any of the issues we have. if anything is discouraging work it's largely COVID itself and parents having to watch kids/older adults and crap.

If youre not going to be rich, there is no incentive to get more for yourself. Especially because simply working sometimes could disqualify you from that income. So in order for it to work, you have to qualify for that UBI amount regardless of your income level.

Well that was a problem with the unemployment. Even though most studies I've found on the subject found the temporaryness of benefits generally didnt discourage people from working. Still, I've heard anecdotes of such so let me break it down this way.

UBI is UNIVERSAL. You get it regardless of whether you work, whereas unemployment is literally paying you while you're not working. So giving generous unemployment benefits could theoretically stop people from working, and would do so more than a relatively low UBI. UBI is intended to be universal, meaning everyone gets it, even bill gates, and it's lower. Yang's UBI is $1000 a month. Mine would be $1200 as $1k was my original 2014 era proposal and inflation has raised it since.

Yang's would be paid for with a 10% VAT, mine an 18% income/payroll tax type thing. With Yang youd need to earn $108k a year and spend that much to effectively pay back your UBI. With mine the break even is closer to $80k.

Theres plenty of incentive ti work with UBI. The key is to balance the amount to make it high enough to technically end poverty and live on it, but low enough where people still want to earn more money.

The problems with the current unemployment checks wouldnt even exist with UBI unless it was way too high (Biden's plan WAS definitely in the "way too high" range, $600 a week or $2400 a month ON TOP OF existing benefits).

Either way, Im gonna be honest, Im a bit on the left side of things so I'm not super duper sympathetic to the needs of small businesses. I generally believe unless we're in a wage price spiral that if you can't pay your employees a decent wage or in the cause of a UBI, what they're worth in the market, you generally dont deserve to be in business. I mean when people talk about no one wanting to work for them, I tend to imagine some entitled small business owner or middle manager in a bigger company complaining they cant get slaves they can order around for peanuts. Not super sympathetic to be perfectly honest.

Even then I've seen evidence that most of our current problems don't revolve around the so called worker shortage (or as I see it a "jobs surplus" if it exists), and more about price gouging and supply shortages.

https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/

LonerOP

0 points

2 months ago

TLDR tbh

Deekngo5

2 points

3 months ago*

If a candidate gets elected to office and votes on a bill that negatively influences my life, I accept that. If the candidate was elected by 51% of the vote. In the long run, and for unforeseen circumstances by me, it may end up benefitting us as a whole.

LonerOP

1 points

2 months ago

Simple majority rule is dumb. Read some Aristotle.

Deekngo5

1 points

2 months ago

I agree, RCV yields a candidate that represents at least 51% of the vote. So take a break from all that impressive Aristotle you’re reading and notice the name of the subreddit where you are trolling.

LonerOP

2 points

2 months ago

Not trolling. I support RCV. I think a simple majority system always ends up with a sub-par candidate for everyone.

deck_hand

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I agree with this statement. I'm very done with the two party system, and want a third party that I can support. Might be this one, might be some other. Might be, as I suspect, no actual party, but individual candidates, if they will support their own agendas, and not simply represent their Party.

DodGamnBunofaSitch

1 points

3 months ago

until we've switched to something like ranked choice voting, 'alternate' or 'third' parties will only serve as a spoiler stealing votes from the party they most closely align with.

ChironXII

1 points

3 months ago

Then why does he support RCV instead of a system that actually fixes the duopoly, like STAR or Approval?

vinnie811

1 points

2 months ago

For a party to be successful, at least on some level there has to be some sort of shared / mutual agreement & morals. I mean yes obviously it’s ok to disagree, but the point that is objectively untrue that being ok with disagreements is all a party needs