There is literally no evidence in the world that would convince you of this, which further proves my first comment. 

But of course out of everyone that worked on this study, none of them could do math. 

I see this as 1) causing inflation 2) spending $2.9 trillion (a year) to grow the economy by $2.5 trillion (after several years) is not a positive gain 3) not everyone needs this type of handout.

This is a really short-sighted idea.

I hope it is otherwise it would be pretty pointless.

Honestly the socialist talk is a bit silly because Nixon had almost created a form of basic income:

First, however, Nixon needed some evidence. Tens of millions of dollars were budgeted to provide a basic income for more than 8,500 Americans in cities around the country. The researchers wanted to answer three questions: (1) Would people work significantly less with a guaranteed income?; (2) Would the program cost too much?; and (3) Would it prove politically unfeasible?

The answers were no, no, and maybe.

Working-hour reductions were low across the board. “The ‘laziness’ contention is just not supported by our findings,” the chief data analyst of the Denver experiment said. “There is not anywhere near the mass defection the prophets of doom predicted.” The decline in paid work averaged 9 percent per family, mostly attributable to twenty-somethings and women with young children.

Later research showed that even the 9 percent finding was probably too high. The original study calculated the percentage from self-reported income.

When researchers compared the self-reported figures with official government records, they discovered that most participants underreported their income. After correcting for this discrepancy, the researchers discovered that the number of hours worked had scarcely decreased at all.

“[The] declines in hours of paid work were undoubtedly compensated in part by other useful activities, such as search for better jobs or work in the home,” noted the Seattle experiment’s concluding report.

One mother earned a degree in psychology and got a job as a researcher. Another woman took acting classes while her husband began composing music. “We’re now self-sufficient, income-earning artists,” she told the researchers. Among youth included in the experiment, almost all the hours not spent working went to education. In New Jersey, the rate of high school graduations for participants rose thirty percent.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/

Yet the facts are, unlike practically every other western country Australia did not suffer the economic crisis of 2008.

Was it solely due to the cash handout? I doubt it, but I think it was a big reason why Australias economy didnt suffer like most other estern economies.

I cant find many graphs that illustrate it but heres one, you will see Australia did not go into the negative, unlike USA,germany,france,UK etc etc

Perhaps during the next financial crisis other countries will follow a similar stimulus package, as it seemed to of worked out better

I keep hoping some other country will take the plunge so we can see how it plays out over the course of a decade lol; I'd like to see how it works (or doesn't).

This study was politically motivated, so it's essentially worthless; any "study" can utilize whatever figures they like to in order to come to their desired conclusion.

It's not terribly different philosophically from the use of stimulus packages in the past, which have generally had mixed results. Perhaps if it was more sustained it could help, but it would require a rather serious increase in government funding that I sincerely doubt it coming anytime soon.

Maybe this one? https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/

This is the comment you're talking about? None of what I said earlier proves anything here. It's only a good idea if you cherry pick the good shit while not showing any of the bad effects.

There is no objective evidence of this being a good idea or study that actually examined it completely. They didn't point out how much it would cost a government or the wide ranging effects of that cost would have on the government and people. The study is a farce which actual purpose is to misconstrue the effects of the government giving alot of money away. It's just propaganda. 

Propaganda.

Noun.

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

Hopefully one day there will be a party that cares about all of us

The idea was that it was going to be written into debt, not come from another taxpayer.