Yang Counterargument Repository

Argument: The alt right including people like Richard Spencer endorse Yang:
Counterargument(s):
* Hitler was a vegetarian, would you disavow vegetarianism as well?
* Why the alt right like Yang:
    * UBI is an objectively great policy, and appeals to broad swathes of the electorate.
    * Yang's dispassionate appeal to the data means that he calls it as he sees it and doesn't try to shoehorn the facts to fit a preferred narrative.
    * Related to the above, he is mainly colour blind, and thus acknowledges that yes, white people have problems to — and I say this as a black person — that he is actually willing to address their concerns, makes them more willing to entreat him than the rest of the left who pretend like their problems don't exist to begin with. He's willing to honestly address their concerns — and the concerns of every demographic because yeah, Yang's colourblind like that — and this makes him vastly preferable to the rest of the left who not only refuse to acknowledge those problems, but act like they're racist, fascist scum for raising those concerns to begin with.
    And the alt right (yes this includes the Nazis) are people to. They have concerns like regular people.
Instead of vilifying — and further radicalising them — perhaps what we need is to offer that figurative fig leaf? If we ever want to unite America, hateful rhetoric wouldn't cut it. Yang hasn't courted support from the alt right, but IMO Yang's diverse voter base is a plus.

Argument: Yang is a white nationalist (sympathiser) and/or racist/fascist/bigot/<insert derogatory term here>. Link to tweet Yang made about the opioid epidemic.
Counterargument(s):
* American life expectancy has declined for three years straight. In using "our", Yang was referring to Americans and not white people in particular.
* Yang has explicitly disavowed the alt-right: https://i.imgur.com/OpCFJJHl.jpg

Argument: Removing the social safety net for a $1000 is bad for <insert reasons here>/Anti UBI pro welfare rhetoric.
Counterargument(s):
Guaranteed income is superior to welfare as it removes the perverse incentive of the welfare trap — the phenomenon whereby individuals are disincentivised from bettering themselves as doing so removes their access to welfare. If you're a poor person on welfare, trying to get a better source of income may be a bad idea as it would remove your access to welfare and live you strictly worse off. This encourages people on welfare to remain stuck in welfare, and not try to increase their income stream. This is a perverse incentive indicative of fundamental weaknesses with our welfare infrastructure. UBI would remove this perverse incentive as it is an unconditional guaranteed income. People wouldn't need to fear losing their UBI if they raised their income level. This would allow many individuals to raise themselves to the middle class.