All right, but I think part of the problem is that you like big ideas and there's a gap between ideas and implementable policy. I guess, for example Universal. Basic income. Are you? Bi is a key idea of evangelizing. You should get all credit for that. But your policy proposal in New York wasn't actually Universal and didn't provide basic income. Your plan would have only benefited 500,000 of the poorest New Yorkers and given them two thousand dollars a year on average, Which is less than the median rent in New York on a single month. Talk a little bit about what happened here with Ubi, which is sort of your, you know, sort of your branded policy. All

the national level care. I think we're seeing that. Possibly even basic income is the future and should be the present to majority of Americans support it. The child tax credit Has Lifted Millions out of poverty. It should be continued in perpetuity and should be enlarged and expanded to people who don't have kids. Now if you're running for mayor of New York City, you have budgetary constraints that aren't in place for the federal government and I did not think it was going to be realistic, even though I think most people know, I'd love to do this, to say I'm going to give every New Yorker thousand dollars a month. Like that, that would have been mathematically impossible. And so we committed a billion dollars to lifting the most Indigent out of extreme poverty and I wanted to do much much more but I didn't believe that the federal policy made sense of a local level. But

do you think that was misleading voters by packaging? These these incremental policies which it was as big Ideas. I think

a billion dollars towards poverty relief even in a city. The size of New York City is a big Dia and I hope that it still happens. The fact is that we're seeing that cash and people's hands, even in relatively modest amounts can make an enormous difference. And if you talk to people in those circumstances, you see why very clearly and quickly,