> I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success....
The issue here though is the implication, and even with some people the genuine belief, that it is true always. On average you are correct, yes, but if you consider that averages are not spread evenly, there are subsets (US states would be only one example) where the reality is very much different than the national average reflects. So, when you say "if the government does <x>, <y> WILL happen", and people KNOW that to be false (because they have seen past attempts fail), this is at least in part where part of the rift between political camps begins to form, or contributes to the overall problem. Furthermore, these "minor" differences of opinion can then be exploited by opportunistic politicians to have far more impact than they would otherwise.
A not terribly great illustration of this imho can be seen above - downvotes of this idea with no rebuttal illustrating it's wrongness. In the majority of the IRL & internet discussions I've been involved in, a rebuttal is never provided because "the left" considers this discussion to be over. They are correct, full stop. They do not need to address opinions different than their own, because they are wrong. To my mind, this is a very dangerous mentality, and leads to the very political climate we are seeing today.
Politics always has been and always will be a battle of ideas. Abandoning logic and resorting to force, mob rule, and covering ones eyes and ears does not lead to a successful outcome.