Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast This week, Briahna spoke to two residences of low income, underserved districts who've taken it up on themselves to challenge the establishment king makers who've lead their communities, largely unchallenged, for years. First, Brie interviewed 2018 challenger to Joe Manchin, Paula Jean Swearengin, about whether Democrats now regret not backing her 2018 run, or her 2020 run for the other WV senate seat. She explains why she's left the Democratic Party, why she's chosen the Movement for a People's Party over the Green Party or Andrew Yang's Forward Party, what political messages land in Appalachia, and what's next for MPP. Brie then spoke to Gregg Dixon, who is one of two Democratic candidates challenging Jim Clyburn in South Carolina's 6th district -- one of the poorest in the country. How has Clyburn amassed so much power in a district where so many people are struggling, what would it take for Dixon to win, and what are the unique challenges to running a rural campaign? Also, is it possible to win on a ticket that centers reparations so strongly? The interview ends explosively as Brie follows up on some rather unorthodox (for the left) policy ideas. We might not agree on all things, but the question remains: Is he better than Clyburn? Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube to access our full video library. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod)and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Ben Dalton (@wbend). Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).
Author and former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson joins Andrew to talk about the 2024 presidential election, third party dynamics, and her experience as a candidate. Watch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/1qq_5ODCcX4 Marianne Williamson - https://twitter.com/marwilliamson | https://mariannewilliamson.substack.com Andrew Yang - https://twitter.com/AndrewYang | https://forwardparty.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Andrew Yang, brilliant human and presidential candidate, joins the DTFH! You can find Andrew's many books, The War on Normal People, Smart People Should Build Things, and the newly-released Forward wherever books are sold. And you can learn more about his new nonprofit to end poverty at HumanityForward.com! Original music by Aaron Michael Goldberg. This episode is brought to you by: Athletic Greens - Visit AthleticGreens.com/Duncan for a FREE 1 year supply of vitamin D and 5 FREE travel packs with your first purchase! Lucy - Visit Lucy.co and use promo code DUNCAN for 20% off your first order! BLUECHEW - Use offer code: DUNCAN at checkout and get your first shipment FREE with just $5 shipping.
Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast Is it time for a 3rd party challenger in 2024? Last week, Politico reported that several major progressive voices are confident that there will be a left challenger to Joe Biden. Jeff Weaver, Bernie's 2016 campaign manager, said it's a given, and names like Nina Turner and Marianne Williamson have been floated as possible candidates. However, much of the left is still skeptical of "dum dum" third party runs -- even as efforts like The Movement for a People's Party and the Andrew Yang's Forward Party reflect a growing interest in electoral alternatives outside of the two party system. This week, Brie spoke to two committed leftists who aren't so skeptical of the value of third parties -- Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant -- about what a third party run could look like, and why so much of the left remains hostile to having a serious conversation about electoralism alongside labor organizing efforts. Kshama also explains how she was able to defeat the Amazon-backed recall effort against her, and what it will take for the left to win at the federal level. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Ben Dalton (@wbend). Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).
The infinitely funny and smart David Cross stopped by for a chat and we couldn't contain our excitement. You know him from Mr. Show, Arrested Development, The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret (tip from Wilson: the best hidden gem show you'll find), and his hilarious standup specials. And now you know him as a Useful Idiot. We talk comedy: creating a standup special, using audience feedback to perfect his set, and how he felt when Netflix took down an episode of w/ Bob and David for having a character in blackface. We talk politics: why Bernie would've won, why (some) Hillary Clinton supporters were blinded by tribalism, and why Andrew Yang should “fuck all the way off.” And for good measure we geek out about our favorite David Cross roles and bits. Come back Monday for the extended interview where we take a deep dive into his new special “I'm From the Future,” politics, and more. Plus, Joe Manchin and the crackhead daughters, military-grade snow removal, and naked but masked. It's all this, and more, on this week's episode of Useful Idiots. Check it out. And subscribe to hear the ad-free version. Your subscription goes to help the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and independent journalists everywhere. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Chapters and Timestamps From This Episode: [02:19] Chapter 1: Bitcoin 2022! [03:27] Chapter 2: Aarika's run for Congress and interest in protecting Bitcoin. [05:07] Chapter 3: The panel members introduce themselves. Plus, the first pro-Bitcoin Presidential Candidate, Andrew Yang, speaks. [14:00] Chapter 4: The race against time for an anti-poverty implementation of Bitcoin. [15:40] Chapter 5: If the American dream has been lost, what role does Bitcoin play in restoring it? [29:05] Chapter 6: What can be done to rebuild the socioeconomic ladder in the US? [37:58] Chapter 7: The two key factors that help someone climb the socioeconomic ladder. [40:36] Chapter 8: Universal Basic Income and Bitcoin: How do we make sure citizens are being protected and able to prosper far into the future? [54:10] Chapter 9: How can Bitcoin become a bipartisan movement in the US? [1:00:00] Chapter 10: Does Bitcoin support progressive values? [1:05:40] Chapter 11: Senator Lummis joins the conversation. Discussing her new bill, The Financial Innovation caucus, and solutions for improving the divisive nature of the country. [1:11:54] Chapter 12: Bitcoin is as American as apple pie. [1:17:58] Chapter 13: What makes us feel invested in a job? [1:19:50] Chapter 14: Q&A. How hand in hand is UBI and Bitcoin education? Will Andrew be running for President again? Foster care reform, and more. [1:50:00] Chapter 15: Closing remarks. How Bitcoin adoption supports anti-corruption and brings wealth to the unbanked.
It's time for the boys to say goodbye to Your New Opinion. But before they go, they've got one last doozy of an episode for you, dear listener. Join Ryan, as always here with his co-hosts, Nick, Ben, Mike, and Grant in this ultimate showdown finale! The boys enter into a bracket-style tournament that can only have one winner. Also, find out the stats across all 248 episodes. Also also, find out if Mike really ever understood the point of the show. Also also also, find out if the boys did actually care about you listening. Discussion topics include: abs, free will, what it means to be human, Calvin & Hobbes, Psy, Jar Jar Binks, privacy, web cookies, gramnmar, podcasting, sex workers, couches, squirting out kids, birth control, Stephen King, talking cars, up, Australia, Val Kilmer, American saviours, imaginary numbers, computers, Jeff Bezos, charity, unemployment, Andrew Yang, blame, chaos theory, wedding receptions, classy nights, vape juice, dancing aliens, sweaty nerds with glow lights, Lee Pace, Dune, the prison industrial complex, airports, Harry and the Hendersons, Phil Hartman, adoption, loving parents, steampunk, cinematography, imitations of life, and Spongebob pores.
Andrew joins Alexis Gay on Non-Technical to talk about fast typing, overgelled teenage hair, and the optimal use of "suboptimal." Alexis Gay - https://twitter.com/yayalexisgay Non-Technical - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/non-technical/id1542532605 Andrew Yang - https://twitter.com/andrewyang Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
On this THROWBACK episode, I'm joined once again by economist Max Gulker! Listen as we go back to the end of 2019 (right when the Democratic primaries were kicking off) when Andrew Yand was mixing things up in the Democratic primaries, where we discussed Yang's economic policies, namely, his universal basic income proposal to give every American $1,000 a month. Original Show Notes: Andrew Yang is easily one of the most interesting candidates running for the Democratic Party nomination. His economic ideas have captivated his supporters, the "Yang Gang", leaving a nice portion of Americans arguing it's #TimeForYang. Today, I have Max Gulker from the American Institute for Economic Research return to the show to offer his expert analysis of Andrew Yang's economic policies, namely, his universal basic income proposal to give every American $1,000 a month. Find Max Online- Twitter: https://twitter.com/maxgAIER Email: Max.Gulker@aier.org Website: https://www.aier.org/staff/max-gulker-phd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The rapidly spreading omicron variant is now the dominant Covid strain in the U.S., representing 73% of sequenced cases, according to data published today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky joins Shep Smith to discuss the spread of omicron among new Covid cases in the U.S. and what families can do to protect themselves over the holiday season. CNBC's Meg Tirrell reports on what we can look forward to in the world of medicine in 2022. CNBC's Jabari Young discusses the number of professional athletes who have been added to Covid lists, and what the leagues are hoping to do about it. NBC's Sahil Kapur reports on Sen. Joe Manchin's refusal to support President Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's vow to bring the bill to a vote in early January. Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang discusses his efforts to create a third political party in the United States. Plus, CNBC's Perry Russom reports on why families around the country are struggling to afford diapers for their kids.
Andrew Yang - past presidential candidate, founder of the Forward Party, and leader of the 'Yang Gang' - is kind of a big deal, but is particularly popular among listeners to The 80,000 Hours Podcast. Maybe that's because he's willing to embrace topics most politicians stay away from, like universal basic income, term limits for members of Congress, or what might happen when AI replaces whole industries. Links to learn more, summary and full transcript. But even those topics are pretty vanilla compared to our usual fare on this show. So we thought it'd be fun to throw Andrew some stranger or more niche questions we hadn't heard him comment on before, including: 1. What would your ideal utopia in 500 years look like? 2. Do we need more public optimism today? 3. Is positively influencing the long-term future a key moral priority of our time? 4. Should we invest far more to prevent low-probability risks? 5. Should we think of future generations as an interest group that's disenfranchised by their inability to vote? 6. The folks who worry that advanced AI is going to go off the rails and destroy us all... are they crazy, or a valuable insurance policy? 7. Will people struggle to live fulfilling lives once AI systems remove the economic need to 'work'? 8. Andrew is a huge proponent of ranked-choice voting. But what about 'approval voting' - where basically you just get to say "yea" or "nay" to every candidate that's running - which some experts prefer? 9. What would Andrew do with a billion dollars to keep the US a democracy? 10. What does Andrew think about the effective altruism community? 11. What's one thing we should do to reduce the risk of nuclear war? 12. Will Andrew's new political party get Trump elected by splitting the vote, the same way Nader got Bush elected back in 2000? As it turns out, Rob and Andrew agree on a lot, so the episode is less a debate than a chat about ideas that aren't mainstream yet... but might be one day. They also talk about: * Andrew's views on alternative meat * Whether seniors have too much power in American society * Andrew's DC lobbying firm on behalf of humanity *
Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast In the best Žižek interview you'll hear this month, Brie asks the Slovenian philosopher to revisit his stance on Biden and Chomsky's vote blue no matter who take from exactly a year ago. Is it enough for the left to merely hold Biden accountable to his own campaign promises? Or should somebody be demanding more? Perhaps something more in line with what the people actually want? Brie also asks Žižek about Andrew Yang's Forward Party and vote withholding, Žižek stance on vaccine mandates, Julian Assange, lab leak theory, the left's confused immigration policy, student loan debt, and of course, Star Trek. It's a two hour banger. Happy holidays ya filthy animals. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube to access our full video library. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod)and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Ben Dalton (@wbend). Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).
It didn't take long for Andrew Yang to learn how vicious and broken the media and our two-party political system are. During his 2020 Democratic presidential campaign, he felt the system's corruption firsthand. So now, he's on a mission to fix it — and he started by leaving the Democratic Party behind to form a new one: The Forward Party, which he outlines in his newest book, "Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy." Yang joins Glenn for a conversation that the two-party system says should never happen, but that results in something rare: allies in the fight to prepare for the greatest upheaval mankind might ever have seen — the automation-fueled “revolution of all things.” While Glenn and Andrew debate climate change and Yang's trademark $1,000 universal basic income proposal, they find common ground on tech, cryptocurrency, and disturbing political trends that would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves. Sponsor: Preborn - Will you help rescue 10,000 babies' lives? To donate, dial POUND 250 and say keyword “BABY.” That's POUND 250, keyword “BABY,” or go to PreBorn.com/Glenn. AR500 - The best day to prepare was yesterday. The second-best day is today. Protect yourself and your family now ... with AR500 Armor. Go to AR500ARMOR.com/BECK today to see this special offer, and use Code “BECK” at checkout for 20% OFF. This special offer and my promo code are just for my audience. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What book prompted his run for President What surprised Yang the most about running for President What were President Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren & Pete Buttegieg were like behind the scenes? Why he thinks our country is more divided than ever before Media's role in our country's division Why the two party system is failing us His new third party- the Forward Party and how it could change politics The machinery of American democracy is failing –Yang's bold new ideas to rewire our country for twenty-first-century problems Is it possible/reasonable to stay optimistic? Yang's message to young people What he hopes his legacy to be. Purchase his national bestselling book FORWARD, here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/667341/forward-by-andrew-yang/ Follow Andrew Yang on social media: Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/andrewyang/?hl=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Learn more about Andrew Yang + the Forward Party: https://www.andrewyang.com/
For this episode of the Poverty Research and Policy Podcast, we hear from Professor Amy Castro about the concept of Basic Income, and what she and her team are learning from data coming in from pilot projects around the country. Professor Castro is Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. --- Transcript: Judith Siers-Poisson: Hello, and thanks for joining us for the poverty research and policy podcast from the Institute for research on poverty at the university of Wisconsin-Madison. I'm Judith Siers-Poisson. For this episode we are going to be talking with Professor Amy Castro about the concept of Basic Income, and what she and her team are learning from data coming in from pilot projects around the country. Professor Castro is Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Castro, Thanks for joining us today. Amy Castro: Thanks for having me. Siers-Poisson: What do we mean when we talk about a guaranteed income? What is it and what is it not? Castro: Yeah, it's a great question because there's a lot of terms that are floating out there in the public imagination that also in the literature. So, there's three basic terms that pertain to this body of work. First is UBI or Universal Basic Income, and that's the one that people are probably the most familiar with given Andrew Yang's presidential run. UBI is exactly what it sounds like. It's universal. It's an unconditional amount of cash that goes to every single person in a city, a state, a town, a county, whatever that jurisdiction may be. We actually have not had a UBI experiment here in the United States because obviously universality know would apply to everybody. We have not had that yet. Second is basic income. Basic income is again an unconditional amount of cash that is given to a group of people, and it's enough to cover your basic needs. The third category, which is primarily what I study, is guaranteed income. It's not enough money to cover your basic needs but is a fixed amount of cash that's recurring, so you can rely on that money coming each month each week, whatever that cadence may be. And I think that's key about all three of these categories. A characteristic that carries across all is the unconditional nature of it, meaning you receive that cash because you're human, you don't receive that cash because you fit a means test criteria or because you are doing something like participating in a workforce force training program or a financial literacy program. You receive that cash because you are because you exist. And that's really the ethos behind guaranteed income or basic income. Siers-Poisson: And it seems like that point is what distinguishes it from, say, what people used to lump under the umbrella of welfare in the past. Castro: Exactly. And I think that that's why, you know, on the one hand, people are so excited about this idea. And then on the other hand, why there is so much backlash, right, is that we truly are talking about giving away money, no strings attached. And traditionally here in the United States, when we talk about the provision of cash or goods to people who are struggling to make ends meet, we layer it with all sorts of restrictions as to how that money can be spent and who can have access to it. And what's attached to those restrictions are social constructions ideas that are not rooted in reality, they're rooted in ideology most of the time around race, class, gender, marital status. And they're used as ways to shame and blame people who access these programs. And it really serves as a social deterrent for people to access them. In contrast, basic income or guaranteed income functions completely differently. If you're enrolled in one of these programs or pilots, you receive it because you're human. And the idea is that people know best what they need and what their households need. And secondly, if we think about need, right? So like financial scarcity or financial need, needs fluctuate from month to month and cash is the only benefit that's flexible. So if needs are flexible, we want to have something that's dynamic to match it. And cash is really the only thing that does that in comparison to something like food stamps or SNAP, which can only be used for restricted items such as food that fits a pre-set list that's set by a bureaucrat. Siers-Poisson: So you just explained that this goes to people because they're people, not because they qualify in some way, but then who was targeted for these guaranteed income programs? Castro: Yeah, it's a great question. So, you know, it's a fancy way of saying it would be what is the recruitment criteria, right? Because we're running experiments scientifically. So we are designing and studying these programs to see what happens when you provide people the money. So one of the big questions that we get any time we're running a new pilot—and right now we're running or at various stages of running twenty-eight pilots across the US at my center—is who gets the money right? And so that's a complicated process that for us happens across three different sets of stakeholders. First, we have our community-based stakeholders, which is what the community wants to set as far as eligibility criteria. Second, you know, elected officials who may or may not be working with us and that are really spearheading the program and helping to kind of get it off the ground. And then third, those of us within the research space trying to determine how do we best leverage this project to answer research questions so that we are informing policy with data. So that recruitment criteria really varies for us from state to state and from location to location. I would say the majority of the projects we're working on right now are focused on people who are struggling to make ends meet. Oftentimes, they have children in the household, and oftentimes there are people who have had some type of a pandemic-related incident with their work: their hours being cut, something to that effect. But that's a general statement of each pilot is slightly different. Siers-Poisson: I want to get into the nuts and bolts of how this works, but first, I want to touch on something that you just said and that's getting feedback from the communities that you are in. And I think that especially the communities that we're talking about are communities that have maybe historically been treated with less respect in the ways that they are given support or help, if they are at all. When you also layer on things like systemic racism and the history of understandable distrust of systems, how do you go in and build those relationships that are necessary to have any hope of being successful? Castro: That's such a great question. You know, first I'll own, before I say how, and sort of jump to say how we resolve that problem, or we try to resolve that problem, because I'm by no means saying that we fix it. The first thing I just want to own is that, you know, as a scientist and as somebody who has social work training, this is the hardest part of my job. You know, it's really easy as a scientist to stay in a position of control. And that's how we're trained, is that you hold your research design so tightly. You are the expert, you know, best it needs to happen. You determine the hypotheses, you determine the design and it is in your hands. And it is very comforting, right? You can lean back into your methods training, lean back into your degree, lean back into your institution or your brand, and label yourself as the expert and that feels very safe. But the more you involve the community in your design, the more you are letting go of really being in control. So when we think about the posture of science and the posture of how we engage with community stakeholders, it's crucial that we sort of hold our integrity as a scientist in one hand while on the other hand, being willing to relinquish control to some degree to involve community voice in the process. And when we look back through social science, we see, you know, decades of places where we've been unwilling to do this and we start measuring things, designing programs and policies, without the community input. And then we wonder why it doesn't work. This happened with TANF, or Welfare to Work as we designed this program, assuming it would work without bothering to think, “Hey, what happens if you expect the mom to work and take three busses to get to the other side of a city?” That literally makes absolutely no sense, right? So I will say that at the outset, it's the most rewarding part of what I do. It's also the most terrifying because it means I'm not in a position of control. As far as how we resolve it, there's no way to do it that's going to make everyone happy. I'll own that from the start. But a couple key steps. First is making certain that we are involving ourselves from the very beginning of a project with community-based stakeholders and organizations who know their community well. So this means doing that legwork of meeting with CBOs, nonprofits, and also the constituents themselves and the people who receive benefits from those programs to understand best how a program ought to be designed. So in some cases, we involve people in giving us feedback on how we design that recruitment criteria, or another way of putting it who gets the money, and getting that feedback. And then crucially, another way that we involve community stakeholders is in release of findings. So in Stockton, for instance, all of that data that's been released on spending that people can see, that is seen by a group of focus groups of community stakeholders that are not elected officials, that are not people in power. They're regular humans who get to see that data first and work with us to think about how we display this data to the public. Siers-Poisson: So let's get down to those nuts and bolts of how these programs work. First of all, how is the amount decided on? You did say that guaranteed income is not supposed to provide for all expenses, but even given that, it seems like the cost of living in different parts of the country or even parts of a state would need to be taken into consideration. So how do you find that that amount that is going to give you some kind of results that mean something? Castro: That's a great question, and it's one of our most vexing open research questions. So first, Stockton was set at $500 a month. The rationale behind that $500 a month is that the question of whether or not you can absorb a $400 unexpected shock or financial emergency is a standard question or threshold within economic mobility research and something that's standard in a lot of our large datasets. So it sort of made sense to start there. A lot of other cities who have built on the Stockton model have kind of just lifted that amount of money because that's what Stockton did. We have very limited control as to deciding the disbursement amount. And of course, those things are also restricted by the amount of funds that are available to a given pilot. However, some of our larger places and bigger cities with higher cost of living like, for instance, the L.A. area, we're talking about $1,000 a month. So it's really an open question for research and for policy as to how should we adjust unconditional cash based on cost of living. It's not something we have a good answer to yet, and I'm hoping that we will within the next three or four years because, yeah, cost of living is different from one state to the next, from one city to the next. And that's absolutely something that needs to be taken into consideration when we're talking about moving from pilot to policy. Siers-Poisson: So Stockton, which is the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED, I believe, as you said, that was the first pilot of this specific type of guaranteed income program. How did it come about? Why Stockton? Castro: So it's incredibly interesting. So first, Mayor Michael Tubbs really spearheaded the launch of that project in partnership with Economic Security Project. So Economic Security Project or ESP, which is headed up by Chris Hughes, former cofounder of Facebook, and Natalie Foster, they had been sort of looking for a city that was interested in potentially testing this idea. Now everyone is kind of running to try find a basic income pilot but go back to 2017, 2018, people are like “you are crazy. You're going to give people money? No strings attached? That's absolutely nuts.” And here's Mayor Tubbs, who you know is, I believe the youngest, if not one of the youngest, who's 26 years old, elected as mayor in Stockton. You know, Stockton had nowhere to go but up. They had experienced the worst that capitalism has to offer. They were once the foreclosure capital of the United States, while also absorbing the cost of housing from the bay area. So it made it sort of an ideal spot to test this idea because one, you had a mayor who was interested and willing to try anything right, willing to take the risk. But second, it really is a bellwether location. And when we think about sort of the way that risky lending has really dismantled the middle class and resulted in tremendous losses in wealth, particularly for, you know, Black and Brown households, Stockton was an ideal place to test policy proof of concept because it really kind of fit that Venn diagram of all these, these different forces that are really contributed to the loss of wealth, the United States. Siers-Poisson: So you had, I think it's fair to say, a visionary young mayor who was interested in trying this. So where did the money come from? Castro: The money came from two kind of different categories. So first, you have the disbursement money, so the money that actually goes to the people. That funding came primarily from the Economic Security Project, along with a number of other philanthropists who donated, smaller family foundations, and also some individual donors. And then the science—this is crucial because this is a model that we, we maintain across all the things that we're working on—the funding for the science came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. And so we really like to keep a strong firewall between those two sides. So there's not coercion. So, RWJF, you know, really to their credit, specifically, the evidence for action arm of RWJ, really took a chance on our project and funded the research side. So the evaluation dollars were coming from sort of that traditional form of funding. Siers-Poisson: And so how many people were enrolled, and do you think of them as people or as households? Castro: Oh, great question. Yeah. So we tend to talk about sort of the findings at a household level simply because that's how people live, right? They live in networks, they live in households, but the money is not going to specific household, it's going to a specific individual in the household. So we had 125 people in the treatment group, which is another way of saying the people who got the $500. And then we also had a control group who were taking all the same surveys, participating in the same interviews as the treatment group, but not getting the cash so we could compare one group to the other. Siers-Poisson: When did it start and how far along are you now? Castro: So the research ran for two years. Our last payment was in February of this year. So we had one full year of pre-pandemic data or disbursements and then one year of payments during the pandemic or after. We've only released the first-year findings. The second-year findings, that is the total findings, will be released to the public in late spring of 2022. Siers-Poisson: What were the key findings from that first year in Stockton? Castro: So we really saw changes in three key areas. First was income volatility. One of our driving research questions is can guaranteed income disrupt income volatility, which is your money going up and down each month, which really locks people out of financial instruments and being able to plan for the future. We saw less income volatility in those who were in the treatment group in comparison to control after one year. We saw that that sort of stabilization in family finances allowed families to plan for the future. So in the treatment group, after one year, we saw that monthly income volatility really dropped. And one of the ways that we look at that is asking this question: “Can you pay for unexpected $400 emergency expense with cash?” At the beginning of the experiment, in the treatment group, only 25% said that they could do that, along with the control. And after one year, those receiving the cash, 52% of them said they could absorb a $400 unexpected shock, while only 28% of those in control said that. Now this finding is really important because on the face of it sort of obvious, right? If you give people more money, they're going to have more money. But what's key to understand about this is two things. First, that liquidity in the household allowed people to both plan while also absorb the unexpected things that happen to all of us: the flat tire, the missed shift at work, the unexpected copay, which then tends to spill over in a household and cause strain elsewhere in the budget. Second, that liquidity was really pooled across fragile family networks, such that stabilizing those resources in one household actually had a spillover effect into other families where they normally would borrow money and food for those households, which is really key and interesting. And then the second area that we saw big shifts was in our second research question, which was ‘How do changes in income volatility impact health and well-being?” And what we found was that people receiving the cash were less anxious and depressed, both over time and compared to the control group. They reported improved emotional health and well-being, energy over fatigue, again, both over time compared to the control group. Now key, Judith, it's still staggering for me to even think that this is one of research findings is that at the beginning of the experiment, almost everyone in treatment control met the clinical criteria for either anxiety or depression, as measured by some pretty standard measures that we all use at the doctor's office. Most of us have taken these. And so what we saw was that after one year, we saw that treatment group move from meeting that clinical criteria for mild mental health disorder into the category of likely to be well, and that did not happen in the control group. And all we did was provide people with unconditional cash, which is fairly extraordinary. Then finally, our last question was “How is guaranteed income generate agency over one's future? Are we seeing people have greater control and self-determination?” And the biggest finding that we had here was around employment. So, you know, we've talked a lot about assumptions around poverty, and those are certainly very politically driven. And one of the criticisms we often get is “well if you give people cash, they're going to stop working and they'll just quit their jobs en masse,” which is kind of silly if you think about it, because you can't live off of $500 a month anywhere, let alone California. And what we saw in the treatment group was that at baseline, 28% of people in the treatment group were fully employed and after one year, 40% were fully employed, and we did not see that same shift in the control group. Literally the opposite of what politically we're told will happen if you give people cash. And again, when we leaned into our mixed methods design and followed up with qualitative data to understand, OK, how did this happen and why? It was really interesting. Two things that happened first was that the cash removed material barriers to seeking employment that people could not address prior. So in many instances, people who moved from knitting together multiple part-time jobs to one full-time job literally couldn't take a shift off of work to even apply for another job, and the cash allowed them to do that. So it removed some material barriers: cost of transportation, being able to skip work. So if you think about it, it takes time to apply for full-time jobs and you're not guaranteed that you're going to get it. And there's also that protracted period of going through H.R., resigning one position and starting another. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you literally don't have time to do that because financial scarcity generates time scarcity. And so really, removing those material barriers allowed people to apply for positions that they knew they were eligible for and just couldn't didn't have the time to do. Second was an increased capacity for risk taking. So what we saw was several months into that first year of treatment, as people's anxiety dropped, as their scarcity dropped, they had more bandwidth to breathe and really plan for the future. So being able to set certain goals for themselves and take risks knowing that they had the cash to fall back on. So those are both a material thing, you know, as well as a cognitive capacity thing and really sort of being able to reimagine what they wanted for their future. Siers-Poisson: You were able to see how people were using the money by tracking the purchases. And actually, we should say people received the funds on a monthly basis and a debit card, right? Castro: Correct. So in Stockton, the $500 was disbursed each month on a prepaid debit card. So that debit card was reloaded each month right in the middle of the month, and we chose that date. I think it's a crucial thing that gets lost oftentimes in kind of the excitement around guaranteed income is the timing of the money. So most social safety net programs, specifically SNAP benefits or food stamps, they run out by the second or third week of the month. And so what you see is food security at the front of the end of the month and by the end of the month, families are really scraping to get by and having to borrow from friends and family simply to feed their kids. So we intentionally chose the middle of the month, you know, we're really looking to disrupt income volatility, your finances going up and down consistently within the home. So that was kind of chosen to smooth that piece over. Siers-Poisson: So what have you learned from the format of this, that on a debit card, you can see exactly where money was being spent and how much? What are you seeing? Castro: First, I'll say, what's happening with the spending data or how people are using the money, is not one of our primary research questions. We don't really care. I have to be totally honest with you. I mean, how people spend the money is not a research focus of ours. We're far more interested in how spending the money impacts people's lives and impacts their health and well-being. However, again, we echo back to what I said prior. The community is certainly interested in how the money is spent. And when we talked with those focus groups, specifically a group of housing activists who live in Section 8 housing, they were insistent. I mean, absolutely insistent that we were release spending data. And when we asked them why, rather than saying it was because they thought it should be monitored, it was because they had such faith in how people who looked like them would spend it. They said, “No, we want the world to see exactly what it's like to struggle to make ends meet. And we know exactly how low-income moms and dads are going to spend this money,” which is why we took that step. So, you know, the thing around on the spending data first, you know, most of the money went to food. So approximately 40% of the money that's tracked each month on that debit card went directly toward food purchases. And then the next category after that, I believe, was big box stores. And we're talking about things like utilities. Now key, a large portion of the money was transferred off of the card each month into cash or into other bank accounts. And this is the beauty of a mixed-methods design is you can follow up with families to determine why they did that. So when we followed up with people to sort of figure out like, “Hey, what's this about transferring the money into cash,” it was really interesting. Several things first, like I said before, Stockton experienced the worst the capitalism has to offer. They were targeted consistently for risky lending schemes. They still are. Scams are really prevalent in the community, so they had no reason to trust us whatsoever. So the community is sitting there like “I'm constantly targeted with risky things. Why would I trust you?” So people would quickly move the money off the card into an account that they know and that they trust where it felt safer. And then also, you know, a lot of folks are still conducting their everyday lives in cash. So spreading cash around family networks, paying babysitters, things to that effect. Siers-Poisson: I wanted to go back to that focus group being adamant about releasing those results because I'm guessing that they, and other people who are living similar lives to theirs, are very aware of those critics. The people who say, you know, they can't be trusted, they're going to spend it on alcohol and drugs. Do you think that was part of it too? Not just that they were confident that their cohort was going to spend it responsibly, but they wanted to be able to show people like, “Look, this is who we are, not who you think we are.” Castro: Yeah, that's a beautiful way of putting it. I mean, without question, is that they really wanted people to see, you know, so less than 1% of the money on the card that's tracked each month, meaning sort of those merchant codes, these are the same codes that we all have on a normal debit card, you know, went to alcohol and cigarettes. Now, is it possible that people pulled the money out in cash and actually spent some money? Yeah, I'm sure they did. You know, like I bought wine last night, like, don't we all do this? This is a whole kind of point of giving money—that they can be human. But yeah, like they were adamant that they wanted people to see what it was like and they were really clear. And saying, “there are these stereotypes that people have about families who are struggling to make ends meet, and this is a chance for us to show the world really that what it's like to be me.” And I have to say, that group was not just that group, but there are several that we worked with. The challenge of relinquishing control and giving them a true voice in the process has been one of the best decisions we ever could have made as a research team because I wouldn't have chosen to do that. I'd have just chosen to leave it be, not talk about it, not step out into that space. And they really have the confidence and the boldness to say that that we had an ethical obligation to do so. And I think they were right. Siers-Poisson: Have you seen any negative effects in in the data? Have there been any unintended consequences that you, you wish hadn't happened? Castro: That's a great question. Some of that we'll be talking about more as we release the full report. I'd say the number one sort of unintended consequence that would definitely have a negative impact has been interaction with benefits. So this is not just been true in Stockton, this has been true across all the other pilots that we're working with is that within the United States, our social safety net is very punitive. We have something called a benefits cliff, which means that for every dollar that somebody receives, we pull back some of their benefits. So families constantly are in this horrific calculation. “If I take this, you know, I want to take this extra shift at work because I need the cash and because I don't want to lose my job. But if I do that, I might lose my benefits.” And so you're constantly making this calculation, which leaves over less cognitive capacity for other things like goal setting and well-being. That's one issue. But second, it means that families are constantly trapped or penalizing them for working more. So what this meant in Stockton and across all these unconditional cash experiments is that we sometimes have to tailor our recruitment criteria and design to make sure that people aren't losing benefits. So we in many instances where people were randomized into the treatment group to receive the $500 they showed up for the onboarding. They went through the informed consent process and realized, “I'm at way too high of a risk for losing my health insurance, or my housing voucher or my SSI,” and just felt like “I'm too vulnerable. I can't take the risk.” So that is an unintended consequence that we haven't resolved yet. We do our best, but it's one that we're consistently contending with, and it's incredibly frustrating. And what ends up happening is that all of our data is about the people who are willing to take that risk or who were able to take that risk versus those who were forced because of the benefits flip issue to not enroll in these experiments in the first place. Siers-Poisson: I have to say on a human level that I would assume that would be crushing to someone who thinks that they're going to be able to take part in this and then realize it's too much of a risk. Did you get any feedback on it? Castro: Oh man. Yeah. Yes and no. I mean, on one hand, yes, there's times it's crushing and right now my center is embarking on a huge clinical trial with low income cancer patients, and it's a far more vexing issue in that experiment than the other ones. So, yeah, like at times, it is totally crushing. I think what's even more sobering was that people weren't surprised. You know, those who had to decline or who didn't bother were like, “well, of course, the systems turned again. Why would this work in my favor? The world's not set up for me. I don't matter. Government doesn't see me.” It was like, “yeah, of course. Of course it went that way.” And so we had a little bit of both. Siers-Poisson: One of the things that I was thinking about, especially when you said that the Stockton experiment dispersed its last round of funding earlier this year. Do we know what happens when a program ends and those people who for a couple of years have that regular influx of cash no longer has it? Castro: Yeah, it's a great question. You know, it's something that we're still sort of obviously collecting data on for all the experiments that we run, we collect data for six months after and then in some cases, there's administrative data that goes on for many years. So I can't give sort of an empirical answer to that quite yet. What I will say is, from a values perspective, this was something that we had to resolve as a team when we were building out Stockton early on, and there really wasn't anything to go on and asking ourselves the question like, “what does it mean to extend hope to somebody and then pull it away?” Like, “How dare you?” Is that even just, is that ethical?” And when I felt caught on that and my team felt caught on that, we went to our Associate Dean of Research, Dr. Solomon, who's a brilliant social work researcher. And she kind of got in my face a little bit, honestly. And she said, “Amy, you are a social worker. What is wrong with you? If you trust people to spend the cash, and to be able to enroll in the experiment, programs are closing on folks all the time. You don't trust them to weather the end?” And it was one of the most profound things of mentorship that I could receive at that moment in time, because she really challenged my biases. Like, I had this bias like people couldn't handle it. And that's not to say that there's not harm that's caused when something ends. But, you know, what Dr. Solomon pointed out, was the poor constantly having things pulled out from underneath them. There's tremendous resilience there. How dare you assume that they'd be worse off? Why don't you wait and see what happens? So right now, we're waiting to see what happens. Siers-Poisson: You talked earlier about how much of a paradigm shift this is of giving people money, trusting them to spend it as they need. And to me, there's definitely an element of trying to restore some dignity to life for people who have, in many cases, had that taken away from them and respecting them and their choices. How do you see efforts like this working to change the narrative about people living in poverty? Castro: Oh, I mean, it's crucial. Right, so here's the thing scientists tell terrible stories, we're bad at it. If we were better at communicating with the public, people would be vaccinated and COVID would be a little less right now. Right. We're bad at telling stories, we're good at staying in our ivory towers and measuring things. To me, it is without question crucial that we that we deal with narrative. So when we look back throughout U.S. history, we know that when policy windows open and we design new poverty alleviation methods, or we design new policies that really move the needle, we have two things that happen. One, we have consensus on data. So we actually know how to design a good program based on what's happening. And that's colleague to colleague, data to data, right? But then second, we see a shift in public mood. And if you do not tackle that public narrative around deservedness, around shame, around blame and you don't deal with public mood, all you do is migrate shame, blame, and assumptions about race and class from one social program to the other. So one of my driving concerns right now, as guaranteed income programs and conversations take off across the country, is making certain that we are keeping our eye on that narrative change work and not assume that this is some sort of silver bullet that's going to get rid of hundreds of years of racism in the United States, because it's not going to. If we don't do that narrative change work, we're just going to migrate the myth of the welfare queen off of TANF and onto guaranteed income. How do we do that? We're still working on it. But what we do know is that privileging voice, privileging community voice in the process, definitely helps us with this, along with dealing with a lot of things like discourse analysis and leading into narratives and putting people's stories out there in the press and in measured ways where, you know, if you want to change the narrative, change the narrator. It doesn't need to be me being the one who's in front of the mic all the time telling those stories. Siers-Poisson: You said earlier that Stockton was the first pilot project, and there are so many more going on right now that you have a hard time keeping track of how many. So what does success look like as these programs are kind of mushrooming around the country? Castro: I mean, everybody sort of defines that a little bit differently. For us within the center, we define success as first of all, were we able to design and experiment with integrity? So were we able to answer the research questions that we set out to answer with the design that we implemented? That's first and foremost, success. Second, to answer on a values perspective, really, we're pretty clear about what we're trying to do. We want to see policies on unconditional cash. Now again, that is not a silver bullet. But what I think success would look like to us as a center is having policies and unconditional cash that are informed by science, informed by data, and not just informed by somebody's good idea. So for us, we really want to see this movement from pilot to policy, but that those policies are evidence based and that they're rooted in science and rooted in real people's lives. Siers-Poisson: Professor Castro, thanks so much for sharing your work with us, and we'll definitely be looking forward to talking about the results from that second year of Stockton. Castro: Yeah, happy to. Thanks for having me. Siers-Poisson: Thanks so much to Professor Amy Castro, Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. If you would like to learn more about pilot programs around the country, check out the website for Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. That's at mayors for A-G-I dot org. The production of this podcast was supported in part by funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, but its contents don't necessarily represent the opinions or policies of that office, any other agency of the federal government, or the Institute for Research on Poverty. Music for the episode is by Poi Dog Pondering. Thanks for listening.
Welcome back to another episode of Endless Hustle! Today on the show, David Alan Grier joins to talk about his new shows, Joe Pickett & Clifford The Big Red Dog. We're also joined by Andrew Yang discussing his new book Forward. Finally, the rapper Coolio joins to talk about his life and career. Presented by Doc Swinson's Whiskey
Can Twitter carry a politician to victory in an election? Playbook co-author Eugene Daniels and deputy editor Zack Stanton talk to Republican digital strategist Eric Wilson, former Andrew Yang presidential campaign manager Zach Graumann, and Aaron Smith, director of the Pew Research Center's Datalab, about the role of social media in political campaigns and the limitations of the platforms. Eugene Daniels is a Playbook co-author for POLITICO. Zack Stanton is Playbook's deputy editor. Zach Graumann was the campaign manager for Andrew Yang presidential run. Eric Wilson is a Republican digital strategist. Aaron Smith is the director of the Pew Research Center's Data Lab. Kara Tabor is a producer for POLITICO audio. Carlos Prieto is a producer for POLITICO audio. Jenny Ament is the senior producer for POLITICO audio.
Former US Presidential Candidate, Andrew Yang, sits down with Bridget to discuss his decision to leave the Democratic Party, the unexpected reaction and fallout as a result, his founding of the Forward Party, why a two party system doesn't work at all, and the importance of ending the duopoly if we have any hope of solving the problems this country faces. They cover the importance of an independent media, the difficulties of galvanizing the "mushy middle" into action, why Americans should travel more, restructuring unemployment benefits, Universal Basic Income, the decline of the labor rate, and building a new tribe to give people who feel disenfranchised a place to belong. Learn more about the Forward Party here .
Krystal and Saagar talk about 6 months, Hochul's real estate money, Andrew Yang, identity fakers, rent prices, Chris Christie, Alec Baldwin, and more! To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Andrew Yang ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, and he sparked enthusiasm and earned respect on all sides for communicating his ideas and proposals outside of the typical rhetoric and talking points we have grown accustomed to. Back in October, Yang took to Twitter to announce the founding of a new political party which he dubs the Forward Party. The premise is simple enough. Democrat versus Republican is broken, and the increasing polarization of seemingly everything is destroying America. Political affiliation is the basis for an acceptable type of discrimination, and our countrymen are downright ugly and mean to one another on the basis of who lines up on the red team or the blue. According to a Gallup pole from October 2021, 26% of Americans consider themselves Republicans, 26% consider themselves Democrats, and a whopping 44% identify as Independents. To Yang's point, close to twice as many of our countrymen prefer associating themselves with neither of the two major political parties. And this is where he wants to focus his efforts at reforming the way we elect our representatives to government. Meanwhile, "Commodore Vanderbilt" over at Not the Bee reported yesterday on the underwhelming November jobs report and how the Biden administration and Democrats at CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC were spinning it. To Jen Psaki's point, most voters are left cold by numbers and statistics. They want to know how the news and proposals of elected officials and political parties are going to effect them personally. When the rubber meets the road, how is their life going to be impacted? How are their loved ones going to be either helped or hindered? And this all relates back to Andrew Yang's proposal of a Forward Party to cure the gridlock and political animus because the establishment types in both dominant parties have a vested interest in relating to fresh ideas based on how they personally would be affected. When more and more folks have planned their entire lives on the current status quo being maintained politically, economically, and socially, good luck getting them to keep the gates open to anyone trying to upset the applecart. Yet there is still a better way, and it has everything to do with 2 Chronicles 7:13-14. "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." At the risk of over-spiritualizing the situation, what we need is not a new political party. What we need is a humble and contrite heart towards the Lord which desires to turn away from wickedness and seek his face. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/support
In our first weekend special, Andrew interviews Derek about the state of the economy, and Derek interviews Andrew about the various plagues of U.S. politics. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Andrew Yang Producer: Devon Manze Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
He's tried to shake up the status quo — as a Democratic presidential candidate, a New York City mayoral candidate, and now the founder of the Forward party. Will his third try be the charm? Andrew talks with Steve about what it's like to lose an election and why a third political party might be the best chance for avoiding a new civil war.
--On the Show: --Nicholas Christakis, Sterling Professor of Social Natural Science at Yale University and author of Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live, joins David to discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on American society and much more. Get the book: https://amzn.to/3riWKEh --Indistinguishable from satire, Republican Senator Tom Cotton tells Fox Host Laura Ingraham that there were no shortages of anything under Donald Trump, despite the opposite being true --Fox News guest Lara Logan likens Dr. Anthony Fauci to Nazi doctor Josef Mengele --In a Fox News segment, host Jon Scott and his guest attack Joe Biden for the low vaccination rate in the US, which Fox News is partially responsible for causing --Andrew Yang appears to be upset about reaction to his answer to a question about white supremacy during our interview last week --Fox News reporter Peter Doocy's attempted gotcha questions of Joe Biden's White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki have become boring and pedantic --Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace plays one character on Fox News and a completely different character on CNN --Former intelligence officer John L. Helgerson explains that giving intelligence briefings to Donald Trump was the most difficult for the CIA of any president --The Eggman calls in to express his displeasure at David's Thanksgiving holiday break --On the Bonus Show: Tulsi Gabbard finds proof America isn't racist, CNN host Chris Cuomo used sources to find info on brother's accusers, Texas father shoots daughter dead while hunting, much more...
Bob and his guest, Andrew Yang, have a very comfortable conversation about the times we are living in, and how Mr. Yang would like to help fix our current issues, from the noise of all the the infighting in government, to the differences and similarities between all people in America. They even discuss comedy and compare careers. Bob is well aware he can not move the needle as much as Mr. Yang could. Andrew Yang's new October, 2021 Best Selling Book was of true interest to Bob, entitled: "Notes on the Future of Our Democracy,” His previous books are "Smart People Should Build Things: How to Restore Our Culture of Achievement, Build a Path for Entrepreneurs, and Create New Jobs in America,” in 2014 and "The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future,” in 2018. Andrew Yang has been an American businessman, attorney, and political candidate. Yang is best known for being a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and the 2021 New York City Democratic mayoral primary. In October of 2021, Andrew Yang announced that he was leaving the Democratic Party to become an independent, faulting what he characterized as a system stuck in increasing polarization and saying that he is "more comfortable trying to fix the system than being a part of it”. Yang then founded the Forward Party, a political action committee that seeks to form a political party that will alleviate political polarization and reform the U.S. political and economic systems. Very interesting is the party Yang started, The Forward Party. His slogan is: “Not Left. Not Right. FORWARD.” Information can be found at: https://www.forwardparty.com You can also keep up to date with Mr. Yang's current schedule and passions at: https://www.andrewyang.com Listen to Bob Saget's Here For You now: https://bit.ly/BobSagetsHereForYouPod Listen Anywhere! Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/BobSagetsHereForYouApple Spotify: https://bit.ly/BobSagetsHereForYouSpotify Stitcher: https://bit.ly/BobSagetsHereForYouStitcher Google: https://bit.ly/BobSagetsHereForYouGoogle Follow Andrew Yang Facebook: https://facebook.com/andrewyang2021 Instagram: @andrewyang Twitter: https://twitter.com/AndrewYang Youtube: @Andrew Yang Follow Bob Saget: Official Website: https://bobsaget.com Facebook: https://facebook.com/bobsaget Instagram: https://instagram.com/bobsaget Twitter: https://twitter.com/bobsaget Snapchat: https://snapchat.com/add/bobsterclaw TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@bobsaget About the Podcast: BOB SAGET'S HERE FOR YOU is a podcast that is like no other— Because it goes inside Bob's Saget's mind, and then quickly filters out through his mouth. Bob has a way of calming people with genuine empathy and humor while they're going through a difficult time, which we all are at present. Reaching his unusually diverse audience that he talks to as a friend, Bob is the dad with great advice, the irreverent funny guy who's always there when you need a laugh, and the free-associative Bob who goes off on crazy tangents then returns to the subject at hand, as serious or as comedic as it may be, to wrap up each episode in a way only Bob can do. Because he really does believe, “He's here for you." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Kim Iversen, host of The Kim Iversen Show & Rising on YouTube, joins us to discuss her support of Andrew Yang's Forward Party, civil liberties & bridging the ever growing divide in our country that corporate media helps perpetuate. Check out our Patreon for more! ☀️ patreon.com/JENerationalChange __ ☀️ WEBSITE: jenerationalchange.com ☀️ TWITTER & INSTAGRAM: @JENFL23 ☀️ PATREON: patreon.com/JENerationalChange
Andrew Yang, entrepreneur & former candidate for President and Mayor of NYC, joins us to discuss his new book, Forward, and his next venture: The Forward Party! We'll also be speaking with Aarika Rhodes, candidate for U.S. Congress in CA-30! Also, Peter went to Rutgers. Check out our Patreon for more! ☀️ patreon.com/JENerationalChange __ ☀️ WEBSITE: jenerationalchange.com ☀️ TWITTER & INSTAGRAM: @JENFL23 ☀️ PATREON: patreon.com/JENerationalChange
Prepare to be triggered, offended, upset and otherwise provoked as we get all 2017 in here and make a list on the internet. Other podcasts are directly challenged. Poor choices are made. Faulty logic is employed and finally we end up not in agreement which is kinda the opposite of making a definitive list. Best bike in the world this week KTM RC390Worst bike 1980 Honda CR450Support the show (HTTPS://www.patreon.com/nocomoto)
Andrew Yang joins Adam in Part 2 of today's show for a one-on-one interview. Adam asks Andrew about establishing a third party, having more competition in our politics, and thoughts on the media's role in our current mess. Later they talk about universal basic income, energy alternatives, other facets of the Forward Party, and predictions for the 2024 Presidential Election. In the last part of the show, Adam and Andrew discuss the failings of the CDC early on in the pandemic. Please support today's sponsors: JoinFightCamp.com/ADAM Klaviyo.com/ADAM BlindsGalore.com let them know ADAM sent you Lifelock.com enter ADAM Geico.com MarshallHeadphones.com enter CAROLLA15
Ace and the gang open the show complaining about the mid-November heatwave in Los Angeles. They also talk about the return of Aaron Rodgers, a recent Bill Maher interview, and mean grandmas. Adam then tells a story about Natalia having friends over and wearing his travel neck pillow. Next, journalist Rav Aurora enters the studio to chat with the guys about his post-high school journalism career, and the guys watch a strange commercial about trusting doctors. Later they discuss studies about racism, problems with the progressive movement, and why Adam makes judgements while he drives. Before the break, Gina reads news stories about Britney Spears, Marilyn Manson, Elon Musk, and Bernie Sanders. Please support today's sponsors: JoinFightCamp.com/ADAM Klaviyo.com/ADAM BlindsGalore.com let them know ADAM sent you Lifelock.com enter ADAM Geico.com MarshallHeadphones.com enter CAROLLA15
A year and a half ago, a guy few people had ever heard of came on to this show's 44th episode to talk both about the business of police reform as well as his new book advocating plant-based eating. A former police officer, at the time of our interview he was the Borough President of Brooklyn and certainly had nearly no national profile. I mentioned in the episode that he was reportedly considering a run for New York City's mayor's office and that some people were even considering him a frontrunner. Well, those pundits turned out to be right, as Eric Adams eventually announced his mayoral candidacy, dispatched his Democratic rivals in the primary, including far better known candidates like Andrew Yang, and then overwhelmingly beat his Republican opponent on Election Day. Now, Adams is about to be inaugurated as the first vegan mayor of America's largest city, and his plant-based diet isn't incidental to his platform. He has big food policy plans, some of which he foreshadows in this interview, which we're re-releasing here as Episode 78 now that Eric is virtually a household name due to his successful mayoral bid. In this interview, Adams talks about how his experience of being beaten by the police while in custody as a black teenager led to him become a police officer himself for two decades, and then ultimately to a life in politics. After serving in the police force, Adams was elected as a state senator in New York where he championed police reforms, including opposition to the then-stop-and-frisk policy, he served two terms as the chief executive of New York City's most populous borough, Brooklyn, and of course is now set to become mayor, with many pundits calling him the future of the Democratic party and even a potential future presidential contender. In addition to discussing technologies from the private sector he believes could be helpful in preventing lethal use of force by police, we also discuss how Adams' adoption of a plant-based diet reversed his diabetes, gave him back his health, and what he thinks private businesses can do to advance public health. And yes, he talks about what he thinks government should be doing to promote better health outcomes through diet, so maybe this interview will serve as a nice foreshadowing of things to come as Adams prepares to take the reins of power in the Big Apple. Who knows, maybe they'll be eating more apples!
Andrew Yang is a popular commentator and former presidential candidate. In his latest book, Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, he advocates for economic reforms like Universal Basic Income and political reforms like ranked choice voting. In this week's conversation, Andrew Yang and Yascha Mounk discuss how today's political campaigns are run, why Democrats struggle to connect with voters, and whether or not third parties can be part of the solution. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: email@example.com Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by John T. Williams, and Brendan Ruberry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
ABOUT AARIKA (via AarikaForCongress.com) Aarika is an educator at her core. Aside from the Teacher of the Year Award she received from the Los Angeles Clippers, She has been published in the Journal for Multicultural Education for an article she co-authored with Dr. Shartriya Collier and Betty Burston entitled “Teaching STEM as a Second Language: Utilizing SLA to Develop Equitable Learning for All Students.” In 2018, Aarika was invited to the Better Together Teachers' Summit at California State University Northridge to speak to dozens of educators about helping every child access curriculum by creating individual connections with each student. Aarika has taught students from diverse backgrounds in public and private schools. She understands the importance of closing the disparity in academic performance between groups of students. In 2020, Aarika was an active volunteer during the democratic primary for former presidential candidate, Andrew Yang. She canvassed in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and all over Los Angeles, where she spoke to hundreds of people about the state of our country. Prior to the suspension of Andrew Yang's campaign, Aarika was in the process of organizing a town hall which was intended to address issues impacting low income communities. As Aarika was hearing the concerns of everyday people, she was inspired to do something which is why she filed to run for Congress. She feels strongly that everyday people matter and will fight hard to solve the problems that matter most to them. If elected, Aarika will support small businesses, work to close the income gap, foster care reform, and fight for every child's right to quality education. Aarika attended public schools her entire life and was often the only student of color in the classroom. But she used it as motivation to be an honor roll student and break stereotypes. This is how she learned to stand against injustice and inequality and acquired her work ethic. She brought her capacity for hard work and her commitment to equality into the classroom as a teacher. Aarika went on to study at California State University Northridge where she earned a B.A. in Liberal Studies with an emphasis on Science and an M.Ed in Curriculum and Instruction. -- Coin Stories is brought to you in part by The Bitcoin Conference and Okcoin. BITCOIN 2022 will be the BIGGEST BITCOIN EVENT IN HISTORY held in Miami on April 6-9, 2022. For 10% Off your Bitcoin Conference Ticket head to https://b.tc/conference and use code COINSTORIES Okcoin is on a mission to make crypto investing and trading easily accessible to anyone around the world. We are building the next generation of tools to help onboard the investors and traders who have been on the fence about crypto. Okcoin a globally licensed exchange with offices in San Francisco, Miami, Malta, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. We are a collective of global citizens with a common passion to help decentralize finance and level the economic playing field for everyone around the world. Visit https://go.okcoin.com/natalie for $50 in Bitcoin when you sign up.
First, Andrew Yang ran for President, and he could barely get mainstream media's attention. Then, he ran for Mayor of New York City, and suddenly, his every move was being scrutinized. Following those two failed campaigns Andrew announced that he was leaving the Democratic Party altogether and announced the formation of a new third party, Forward, this past October. Today, a conversation on how, and why, Yang plans to take on the two-party system, and what last week's elections tell us about the political temperature of the country. Plus, universal basic income, Dave Chapelle, open primary voting, establishment politics, The New York Times, the left wing of the Democrats, cryptocurrency, and Confederate statues. Andrew's new book is called, “Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Andrew Yang just left the Democratic Party to form the Forward Party. He joins to discuss electoral reform, and his book “Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy.” Justin Amash interview: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/justin-amash-wants-to-unclog-congress/id1439837349?i=1000514178120 Katherine Gehl interview: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-spook-the-politics-industry/id1439837349?i=1000511386408 Pedde GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/4ad5fff1
“Politicians are creatures of the market. What market are they responding to? There are political incentives, donors, the media...we have to create our own political incentives, the donors, and the media to stand up for Bitcoin and progress, otherwise we're going to end up on the cutting room floor.”— Andrew YangSHOW DESCRIPTIONLocation: New YorkDate: Friday 29th OctoberProject: Forward PartyRole: LeaderNearly two-thirds of Americans want to vote for someone outside of the current two main parties. The current duopoly is limiting competition in the space for ideas, and worse, it's actively promoting the polarisation of society. Yet, voting for a third-party candidate isn't a choice most voters get, and even when they do, it risks being deemed a wasted vote by a media that frames election results as an existential risk to the nation. The underlying concern is that the current political system is getting in the way of solving the biggest problems at a time when the economy and society is changing in fundamental ways. But whilst most people can see that our politics and media are dysfunctional, they also feel impotent. Andrew Yang is one of those rare individuals who has decided to actively try and change the system, despite the odds being stacked against change being driven by an outsider. However, he's already shown he can do the heavy lifting: he made a meaningful mark on the 2020 Presidential election despite not being part of the political establishment or having had a celebrity platform. In this interview, I talk to Andrew, author of ‘The War on Normal People' (2018), ‘Forward' (2021), and leader of the Forward Party, about his 2020 Presidential run and his current mission to bring about genuine political competition. We then discuss what such competition would enable: reasoned debate about big ideas such as Universal Basic Income, health reform, and Bitcoin. This episode's sponsors:Gemini - Buy Bitcoin instantlyBlockFi - The future of Bitcoin financial servicesSportsbet.io - Online sportsbook & casino that accepts BitcoinCasa - The leading provider of Bitcoin multisig key security.Exodus - The world's leading Desktop, Mobile and Hardware crypto wallets.Ledger - State of the art Bitcoin hardware walletCompass Mining - Bitcoin mining & hosting-----WBD421 - Show Notes-----If you enjoy The What Bitcoin Did Podcast you can help support the show by doing the following:Become a Patron and get access to shows early or help contributeMake a tip:Bitcoin: 3FiC6w7eb3dkcaNHMAnj39ANTAkv8Ufi2SQR Codes: BitcoinIf you do send a tip then please email me so that I can say thank youSubscribe on iTunes | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | YouTube | Deezer | TuneIn | RSS FeedLeave a review on iTunesShare the show and episodes with your friends and familySubscribe to the newsletter on my websiteFollow me on Twitter Personal | Twitter Podcast | Instagram | Medium | YouTubeIf you are interested in sponsoring the show, you can read more about that here or please feel free to drop me an email to discuss options.
Like many, I despair of our country's division, which is rapidly expanding in lockstep with our inability to productively communicate alongside growing distrust in institutions and the media.Also like many, I want solutions. Much of this rests with us. But we also need leadership.Across the political landscape, most elected officials understand this problem and its gravity. However, very few proffer solutions beyond the beaten path. Even fewer demonstrate a good-faith willingness to tackle the dilemma with solution-based action.Today's guest Andrew Yang is an exception to this pattern.For those unfamiliar, Andrew is an entrepreneur turned politician best known for his 2020 presidential run and subsequent New York City mayoral bid. He's the man who pioneered a national conversation on the power of universal basic income (UBI) to address maladies produced by widening wealth disparity. And he's a leader I find genuine in his commitment to the greater potential of our democratic experiment, bringing forth original and bold ideas to the national conversation—ideas not always in his best self-interest.Part memoir, part campaign trail exposé, Andrew's latest book, Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, is an instructive read on the damaged state of politics and political media as well as the broadening national divide that is eroding our humanity. A roadmap on how to repair the broken spokes of our democratic system, it also serves to announce the creation of a new third party—the Forward Party—part of Andrew's plan to redress democratic dysfunction by disrupting America's two-party duopoly.Today Andrew shares his story and vision.This is a relatively partisan-fee conversation about how to reimagine the democratic experiment for the betterment of all.We discuss the merits of universal basic income, human-centered capitalism, the problems with our gerontocracy, and what we need to truly progress as a nation.In addition, we discuss the perils and merits of a third political party; the role of new media in politics; the advantage of open primaries and rank choice voting; the importance of grace and tolerance; and how to modernize government's anachronistic bureaucracy.To read more click here. You can also watch listen to our exchange on YouTube. And as always, the podcast streams wild and free on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.This conversation was an absolute pleasure. I sincerely hope you enjoy it in the spirit in which it is offerredPeace + Plants, See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast This week, Andrew Yang returns to the pod to discuss his new book, Forward, and his plan to launch a 3rd party. Brie asks Yang some tough questions about what went wrong with his NYC mayoral candidacy, his friendship with Dave Chappelle, & whether "human centered capitalism" is an oxymoron. It's a wide reaching, intimate conversation that touches on Yang's childhood, astrology, media bias, scenes from the campaign trail and more. It's Andrew as you've never heard him before. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube to access our full video library. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod)and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Ben Dalton (@wbend). Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).
Facebook employees say Facebook is dangerous, a Rolling Stone report suggests that the January 6th insurrection was an inside job, and Andrew Yang stopped by Crooked HQ to chat with Jon Lovett about his new third party, Forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In this crossover episode of Forward, Saagar Enjeti, Marshall Kosloff, and Andrew talk about fixing the mechanics of our system, how we arrived at an accidental duopoly, and the civil war-level conflict brewing in our country. Watch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/YZ9WeG0FNhw Follow The Realignment: https://the-realignment.simplecast.com Follow Saagar Enjeti: https://twitter.com/esaagar Follow Marshall Kosloff: https://twitter.com/makosloff Follow Andrew Yang: https://twitter.com/andrewyang | https://forwardparty.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Entrepreneur, best-selling author, nonprofit founder, philanthropist, and former Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang hosts conversations about the biggest issues facing America today. New episodes every Monday and Thursday. https://andrewyang.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Bald Bryan is back in studio after a trip to Maine for his mother in law's birthday. He tells the gang about the incredible food and beer, and a miserable trip back to Los Angeles. Adam then shares some thoughts from his recent conversation with John Rich, and Gina reads news stories about the massive oil spill in Southern California, political loopholes in the Philippines, and Andrew Yang starting his own political party. Before the break, the gang discusses two weathermen fired for wearing offensive wigs, a fight at an Eagles game, and the death of bare-knuckle boxer Justin Thornton. Please support today's sponsors: XChairAdam.com AltoIRA.com/ADAM Podium.com/ADAM Lifelock.com enter ADAM TRICOCatsAndDogs.com Check Out The Jordan Harbinger Podcast Geico.com
In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Andrew Yang about the state of American democracy. They discuss Andrew's run for the Presidency, the humiliations of campaigning, the manipulation of politics by the media, Andrew's run for the mayor's office in NYC, the power of bad incentives, open primaries, rank-choice voting, the Forward Party, the weakness of a two-party system, inequality, the child tax credit, enhanced unemployment, UBI, worries about inflation, and other topics. SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe. Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That's why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life's most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.
Adam welcomes Lamar Odom and ‘Zappy' Zapolin to the podcast at the top of Part 2, and the guys talk about their new documentary, ‘Lamar Odom: Reborn'. Adam asks the guys how they first got together, and Lamar talks about his own personal happiness. Zappy also discusses the power of the psychedelic drug Ketamine, as well as the dangers of fentanyl. Later, the guys chat about the world of boxing, what happened when Lamar OD'd at the Love Ranch, and his multiple championships with the Lakers. In the last part of the show, the guys discuss healing from trauma, more facts about Ketamine, how micro-dosing works, and encouraging people to try these alternative medicines. Please support today's sponsors: XChairAdam.com AltoIRA.com/ADAM Podium.com/ADAM Lifelock.com enter ADAM TRICOCatsAndDogs.com Check Out The Jordan Harbinger Podcast Geico.com
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.tech/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXlMerch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Pandora Papers: https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/global-investigation-tax-havens-offshore/Andrew Yang's Book: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/667341/forward-by-andrew-yang/