>a closer look at how UBI is expected to work reveals that it is intended to provide political cover for the elimination of social programs and the privatization of social services.

Seems like the issue is that UBI, as it's being discussed now, will look more like "entitlement reform" than a net benefit for poor people.

Yeah, because that's the whole point of UBI. It removes all the middlemen, all the politicians/ideologues using those programs to buy votes, the welfare cliffs, and replaces it with something that just helps people. Like with any change though, the ones who benifit from the current system (and I'm not referring to the actual beneficiaries) are going to be opposed to it.

It's really going to to come down to whether you care more about implementing your ideology or actually helping poor people (and everyone else).

It's not socialism at all, unless you are saying that every income transfer program (such as social security) is socialism (in which case you are saying that politicians like President Obama and Hillary Clinton are socialists).

How would UBI transfer the means of production from capitalists to the workers? Don't confuse socialism with a welfare state.

I couldn't agree more. What I see here is an attempt to not so subtly sneak egalitarianism into the right and create confusion.

The question that must always be asked when such initiatives are proposed is, who will pay for it? Often this question reveals that it is always the case that you'll be forcefully acquiring from a producer and giving to a non-producer.