The bailouts were asset swaps, repaid with a gain for the taxpayer [1]. They were not cash giveaways. Comparing this to simply giving cash to people is ludicrous.
The most at risk was about 2T, with only 650B actually out at any time, which at your claim of 20K per person, only pays for 32 million people. You're off by an order of magnitude (completely ignoring that the bailouts were asset swaps, not giveaways).
>Hate poverty? The U.S. has spent more than 5 Trillion on it over the last few decades. That's another 20K or so per man, woman, and child
Over the course of decades. It's not 20K in a year. It's more like 1/40th ($500) of that a year. And the only places I can find a number this large includes Medicare/SS payouts. Are you going to remove these programs (especially Mecicare/Medicaid) with your conversion to a once in a lifetime check per person?
> The national debt is closing in on 20T. Would you rather have a balanced budget and a check for 100K?
That's nonsense. Adding massively more to spending via UBI is not going to balance the budget or reduce the debt, and I don't know what magic lets you take 20T of debt (the biggest holder being SS, and large amounts to the Fed and loans to US investors, such as retirement funds) and simply divide by 320M people to get 100K (actually, this is 62.5K) in a check. Nothing in this line of numerology makes any sense. These uses are nowhere near exchangeable.
>(I understand the math is way fuzzy here. It's to make a point.)
The math isn't fuzzy. It's simply wrong, from the starting values, to the calculations, to the conclusions.
>The reason UBI has such broad appeal is that, well, people are able to do basic math.
Unfortunately this basic math is not coupled to reality, ignores very important and well tested economic ideas backed by 100+ years of empirical data, and is ignores the downsides and costs involved.
And so far, I fail to see many UBI proponents that are able to do basic math. A few can, but mostly they are full of numerology and ignoring the meaning of various amounts.
I've yet to see a UBI that doesn't either require massive tax hikes to the point of possibly destroying the economy or leave those needing assistance now in much worse shape.
>Slogans are great. Results are better.
Intellectually honest claims checking is better, and it helps avoid chasing impossible or unlikely or destructive plans.
