Yes I do, but seeing you imply that government rulling being part of it because it was voted doesn't make much of sense.

And this very "well made" study said that putting 2.9Tri USD per year would increase the economy by 2.5Tri USD, so it would increase less than expent, besides interest in debts and also that not all of that 2.5Tri will come back in taxes so it will just roll bigger and bigger on debts.

yes but the size of our economy also effects our global power. While I agree that going 400billion more into debt in 8 years isn't a great idea for US citizens, it does give our companies, people, government, more power. It's a growth of almost 14%. 23% of China's gdp. 

So yeah, there's a lot of things to think about, and surely I am no expert, but outpacing China by 23% for the cost of 400b doesn't seem like such a bad deal.

It's also important to note that the study says it's not the end all study, and there are multiple other ways to implement this, based on income etc.

Nope man.

The defict will INCREASE 2.9B/year to increase the economy by 2.5B several years later. Even if we considered that it happened at the same time, meaning put 2.9B in people pocket and increase the economy by 2.5B that would mean (let's say an average tax of 30% on this GDP growth) 800B in taxes and the like. So it would be an increase of 2.1B of debt+interest yearly. It is quite crazy.

As others said if government removed all public service and payouts, and only provided roads, law/judicial system and sovereign defense/police with all other costs being converted to this 1k/month per citizen handout for people earning less than say 3k/month. Meaning the government size and cost would be minimal and almost neglible it would at least be more reasonable (and probably mean less money expent than today).

But we know that people will say that it wouldn't be acceptable because who would care, educate, keep health, etc all these guys that would pick this money and use it in things that aren't education, health or food related.

Because the wealthy pay more (income) taxes... you can't cut taxes for someone who does not pay them in the first place. Half of Americans already have 100% tax cut for their income meaning they pay no (income)tax.

waiting for those asking for 90% taxes on the riches or those that want revenue ceiling and that everything over that would be confiscated.

Because businessman will certainly not pass those costs to the price of products or just stop investing.

No, you have a much too constrained view of the concept. Everything you do for your own economic interest is a part of the "invisible hand" effect - including voting in favour of a proposal for UBI, because you aren't getting by with your normal income. The idea behind "the invisible hand" is the positive effects on society that arise from people acting selfishly. And that includes voting for politicians and referendums because the result affects your economy ;)

Although the idea of basing your economy on an idea formed 250 years ago even though much later research has shown that it doesn't quite hold true the way Adam Smith thought it did doesn't seem too bright to begin with.

Yet the poor pay a higher pecentage in Social Security tax than the rich (the rich stop getting taxed on income above 118k), they pay local sales tax on purchases, etc.  Yes they might not pay taxes on their income but they pay plenty of other taxes.

I would say Hayek, Mises and the like have revalidate most of Adams proposition.

And that we also know that the other side of the coin that have the government interfering have show much more damage caused.

You just print more money LOL. 

I would rather the government provide housing for everyone based on number of members in your immediate family size up to 1 generation. So you could have kids and have your parents living with you but could not claim anything past your kids towards house size. If you are husband and wife with 3 kids then you would get a 4 bedroom house built. You would not own said house and if your family grew or shrunk, you would be required to move into a different one. What you would pay instead of a mortgage would be for "association dues", which would pay for services like local security, neighborhood rule enforcement to ensure people arent parking on lawns or destroying the neighborhood, repairs to homes as needed etc. This could help to eliminate homelessness and keep neighborhoods nicer. It would also allow for people to have more disposable income which would go back into the economy through purchases. If however you still wanted to purchase a house, you would need to pay for the land and any costs to build the new home. You would then still need to pay a tax home owners tax that would also go to the association fees for the state. Those fees could then be divided up into areas that need more than others etc.