no surprise that the greedy heartless sociopathic repukes would ever lend name to this.

if AI is only partially "successful" thousands of people will be out of work (probably myself included)

older people, entry level people and people who have had their jobs complete vanish due to AI

then what?

I guess I will have to "sell my stocks and bonds" (thanks asshole Romney) or call up my parents (who are dead) or go to my "rich" relatives (none) to help me out.



we, as a nation, are fucked seven ways till Sunday

There will always be freeloaders, which upsets maga faux-christians no end with heavy moralizing that has now become so extreme that christians are fighting empathy. They ditched compassion 30 years ago.

Basic income not only saves money, but it saves lives and blight and families and children. Basically, basic income works wherever it is tried.

first, BEFORE something this ambitious can materialize. But, let's be honest and realistic... this is NOT a "winning" issue that will put the Democrats back in the majority. I understand the impulse and desire to "go-big-or-go-home" but for Democrats it's been proven many times that an all or nothing philosophy typically leaves us with nothing... egg on our faces... and being on the losing end.

And... I know what the "coffee and donut" emoji means. Thanks a lot. Clearly, it's easy to attack the messenger or anyone who dares to contradict by speaking the truth or who says anything does not comport with unbridled and unrealistic optimism. Dreaming is nice, but having a winning strategy matters more. That's all I'm trying to say.

I’ve gotten so now I see film of people in groups helping out the less fortunate and it makes me wanna cry. Has everybody forgotten right from wrong?

I mean in reality, how would you pay for that and if they were getting a free months rent and also say some other snap benefits what would force them to go into work?

Maybe if you put a much larger tax on corporations, you could somehow get by with something like that, but it would kind of stifle hard work from those people. It would seem like I don’t know.

I would rather have a few freeloaders than people living on the street. There’s always some excuse not to do the right thing.

Only our coins have a metallic value. The problem is all central banks create money "at interest" without creating the interest itself . We have to nationalize all the world's central banks and have the governments earn the interest. Some other steps would be needed to prevent hoarding of cash.
The idea of basic income is similar to the case for univsrsal health coverage cutting our administrative overhead and reducing friction to people's basic needs can actually stimulate economic growth. The wealthy who've never been hungry for more than a day and they see the economy how they experience it where they push and shove against each other. They no longer understand how much better things could be if the minimum wage was at or near a sustainable level. The wealthy spend their money much slower and often in ways that just shuffle it within their caste on luxury items. People getting basic income will spend it in ways that recirculate much more than these 40 years of tax cuts for the already rich. That is why they keep coming back for more, if the uneven tax cuts worked we wouldn't be in this mess.

this issue will gain momentum. AI will eliminate human trucking jobs. Bezos anticipates firing 600,000 people soon. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/21/technology/inside-amazons-plans-to-replace-workers-with-robots.html

The US isn’t ready for the massive displacement of workers that is happening. This economic chaos will bring reform or upheaval. A minimum income is a strong weapon against upheaval. The world’s first trillionaires will fight against it.

that scares the hell out of me.

The right will scream that it is a Communist program. But in time that won't matter because too many people will be homeless on the streets of America and there will be a new political will to provide this basic standard of living. And it will be a good investment because, as Bob Marley sang, "a hungry man is an angry man." And if they criminalize homelessness, they will still bear the burgeoning costs of imprisoning them. Cut backs in military spending and the bloated corrupt Homeland Security department ought to happen to help pay some of the costs for a decent minimum standard of living in the USA.
And, tax the rich and the church!

Charitable deductions yes but the holdings of Universities and large churches need to be taxed where they compete with the public. Here in NYC the big four landlords are The Chatholic Church, The Episcopal Church, NYU and Columbia University, two relgious, and two big schools. These distort our real estate market and out compete those who have to pay taxes.

Example:
In 2023, Matthew E. Bershadker, the President and CEO of the ASPCA, had a total compensation of $1,203,267, which included a $750,000 base salary, $276,000 in bonuses, and $47,859 in benefits.
Those ads, and others like them, drive me nuts when they exploit pitiful animals to trick you into supporting this CEO's lavish lifestyle. The US tax code ought to be rewritten to put a cap on executive compensation to remain qualified as a tax exempt charitable organization. But it probably won't be because too many politicians launder their slush funds through similar nonprofit companies and organizations.
BTW, why does a nonprofit CEO receive a "bonus?" Corporate CEO's usually earn a bonus for having increased PROFITS and share value.

Single adults with no children will be screwed over again.

WHEN will politicians and 'experts" understand the most vulnerable people in our economy are never-married women over 65? And no, they shouldn't have to get married to be able to eat, for what people are suggesting there is women prostitute themselves.

It is VERY expensive for single people to make it on their own. We don't get any discounts.

There are already MANY avenues available for "families." There are few for impoverished single adults.

...and relatively few people at 18 are married, further indicating this is targeted to individuals, not families. And in one's 60s, people are not so likely to have kids still living with them, and have a decent likelihood of being single (whether never-married as you mention, or divorced, or widowed). So I don't think this pilot is anti-single at all.

I suspect the pilot cutoff is 65 because there is already a program that helps out most people over 65 (Social Security), which if nothing else, would be a big variable in the kind of control-group analysis they're trying to do. And while it is unlikely we'll see a genuine government program come out of this pilot (at least near term), it is that much more unlikely that they would add a new program that covers people over 65 without somehow having it impact the social security program.

This is to demonstrate effects on a similar group comparing a no strings grant to nothing. Then they will need to study a larger group to include disibility and wealfare recipients under traditional support and a simple direct no strings payment.

Yes universal health coverage and a universal basic income are needed across our society along with a steeply progressive tax that hits the wealthy to support all within their economy.

but the timing is weird to me. Democracy is going up in flames, the government is shut down, and the House is shuttered to keep the people from seeing the epstein files.

I mean, might there be some more pressing issues for them to be working on?

Seriously? You named it gyp? The op ads write themselves.

Politics ain't beanbag. Don't give your opposition an easy win.

provide a meaningful job for anyone that needs it, house the unhoused, feed the hungry, heal the sick...... should be a no brainer

we have the resources, just not the collective will....... humans have become so flawed

Especially not for "free."