I thought I discussed this before, but I can't really find it, so I'm gonna assume it was a forum post of some kind, and not a post here on this blog.
But Obama has, a few years ago, hinted at being pro UBI. And he came out again and said it the other day. I was going to ignore it because I thought I made my thoughts clear on this before, but given I can't find the post, and given the amazing atheist did a video on it, I feel like I should give my opinion.
Honestly? Seeing Obama, post presidency, be pro UBI all of the sudden, kind of incenses me. Because I've been pro UBI since 2014. I've been pro UBI when obama was president. In the second term of his presidency, I was deeply frustrated with him. He didn't do much of anything. He couldn't because, ya know, congress, but he DIDN'T EVEN TRY. He just sat there looking pretty and told us democracy is hard work and wouldnt, ya know, even ADVOCATE for policies. Imagine being the most powerful person in the world and not even using your bully pulpit to rally people behind this issue.
And now, when he's out of office, and not in a position to do anything, suddenly he likes it? Really? COME ON, MAN.
Really, I sat through 8 years of this guy as president. And at first, I hated him, I was a right winger, but I was won over by him in 2011 and by 2012, I was starting to become a full on liberal, and in his second term, I became pro UBI. Largely in response to the failures of his administration. Seriously. I sat through years of speeches of him talking about "creating jobs", and got so disillusioned with the idea that I literally just went "F it, I want a UBI, screw this", in his second term. I am the man I am today, because of the failures of the obama administration.
And now this guy, this same fricking guy is suddenly going all Andrew Yang as The Amazing Atheist points out and is pro UBI now? It really does incense me. Why did he not do this then?
At the same time, because it's talking to people like Yang, and probably realizing the failures of his own administration that draw him to this. It's so wild seeing the same neolib centrist type politicians be against UBI when they run for office but afterwards be like "yeah it's a good idea, we should do it." HRC did the same thing, and it pisses me off, because if she ran on UBI I LITERALLY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR HER. Seriously, i wouldn't have been ANYWHERE near as salty over her as I was then. I was salty because she offered nothing and tried to strong arm me into supporting her and then she comes out with a book afterward and is like "oh yeah, UBI might be a good idea" and im like, seriously, Hill? Seriously? Wtf.
Maybe it's the fact that they've had time to reflect on the failures of their own administration's policies and they're kinda sitting there dying inside realizing this isn't working, only to randomly become pro UBI later when they feel like they're no longer bound by the realities of the public office. Maybe they believe in UBI but didnt have the balls to go for it in office because they were afraid of what it would do to their political careers and legacy. I honestly think it would've improved them, but we do live in a deeply jobist country that clearly has issues that could make UBI a tough sell to people. Idk.
I just wish that, if you have the ability to actually push for it while you're in power to do something, maybe you should. You would've been on the right side of history, even if a bit premature. Honestly, it would have raised my opinion of the neoliberal center significantly, and if freaking JOE BIDEN ever came out with such a policy like full stop, I would be simping hard for the guy. I wouldnt just be tepid, I'd be like "yeah this is what we need".
As for the amazing atheist's take on the subject...i dont really wanna go too deep into that, I feel like I discussed all of those points on this blog before, but just to sum it up.
1) Yes, it would be somewhat inflationary but not that much, assuming the UBI is paid for by taxes and cuts to existing social programs, we're not introducing more money to the system, we're just shifting it around.
2) Yes, I guess you could consider it "robbing peter to pay paul" if UBI is done via taxation, but the key is to look at the net effects. Generally speaking, UBI would solve poverty, like full on SOLVE it. It would liberate people from involuntary economic relationships that occur in our current jobist system of thinking, giving people freedom as the power to say no. And it would also greatly decrease income inequality. It would be a net transfer from the top 20-25% or so to the bottom 75-80%. And yes, the rich would get it, but then they would pay it back and then some. I wish people would stop getting fixated on rich people getting it. The tax structure would take care of that issue. They would only effectively get it on paper, with it being offset by higher taxes. All taking it away from the rich would do is means test it, making it less universal, and opening up the door to sabotaging the entire policy.
So yeah. I'd just encourage he search this blog for other posts I've written about this, I've discussed tons of issues like how to pay for it, various common criticisms against it including inflation, the whole problem with not just supporting universal crap and trying to means test stuff to death, issues with the negative income tax (the version of UBI that doesn't give it to the rich), etc. I mean, I've discussed most of this. I admire the amazing atheist being somewhat open minded but his critiques are...the same old crap UBI critics have been throwing at the policy for years now, and I quite frankly don't find them convincing.
And yeah. That's my opinion with that. I mostly just decided to write about this in order to discuss Obama suddenly being all pro UBI and all, and again, it just frustrates me. I mean, you were PRESIDENT, man, why didn't you push this stuff THEN?!
So frustrating...
No comments:
Post a Comment