$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security would cost about $2 Trillion per year. To put that into perspective, Social Se

$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security would cost about $2 Trillion per year. To put that into perspective, Social Security cost $1.3 Trillion in 2013. The cost of all social welfare programs was $529 Billion. The GDP came in at around 17 Trillion. The US could afford it if we really wanted to. So what I'd like to hear are the counter-arguments. - Is it inflationary? Prima facia, it has to be. But then it would also increase the flow of money and put more people to work in places that the $1,000 gets spent. - Is it fair? If every American receives it, regardless of their wealth, then I don't see how it would be unfair. - Is it realistic politically? It seems that the US was pretty close to something along these lines in the 60's[0] and Obama finally got universal health care through. Perhaps it is realistic enough to at least put a true, modern pilot program in place and convince ourselves one way or the other. It really seems better than the alternative: Status quo for the homeless and the poor. A real value is that lower financial stress across the entire country would free parents to focus more on raising their kids. Many, many social problems subside when families do better. So my question is, how can we construct a valid experiment to convince ourselves one way or the other that this will benefit society overall, and provide enough value to actually do it? [0] http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%80%99s-moment-sun http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/guaranteed-income%E2%...