That's not even remotely a sensible argument, since we didn't have UBI then.

You are either not arguing in anything remotely resembling good faith or are not tall enough for this ride. You may have the reply to this unopposed; I'm done here.

UBI is usually proposed as a replacement for welfare, so you’d have one or the other. The potential for running out of money one day did not prevent us from having welfare so it shouldn’t exclude the possibility of UBI.

The ad hominem shot is surprising, given the straightforwardness of my position. I don’t understand why you are cross. Ah well.