It should be noted that the parent quote comes from this very article, whose headline uses “Universal Basic Income” instead of “Guaranteed Income.”

It’s an explicitly inflammatory and inaccurate title. (I’m not weighing in on the content here.)

I wasn't expressing an opinion on the validity of UBI for specific groups. I think that's less crazy than some might think, after all most proponents of UBI suggest at least initially limiting it to a city/state/country. I can even understand wanting to call the Oakland progr UBI, as it is similar and that's a known term. I find inventing a new term "Guaranteed Income" when it plainly isn't to be absurd.

(By the way, I didn't know it was necessary to note quotes came from TFA if not attributed)

I didn’t mean to imply that you were opining on the program itself, only that my reply was limited to noting the contradiction between the article title and the distinction it makes in the body. They are basically saying “our title is a misnomer.”

“Guaranteed minimum income” is an existing term, and a more accurate one for what this currently is. UBI means “available to all citizens,” and while there’s some leniency for pilot programs, which this appears to be, it is unclear from the article if the goal is to transition to a true UBI.

I generally assume the same thing about quotes, I only thought it was worth mentioning due to the title discrepancy, so I was surprised to see it in the article itself, and since this is a hot-button issue I think fewer people will read the full article before commenting.