Exactly, a universal guaranteed income isn’t something that can be dismissed out of hand as “conservative” or “liberal” or “socialist.” For example, the recently proposed “Fair Tax” by Neal Boortz actually recommends a “pre-bate” that is in effect a cash payout to cover tax expenses incurred by the poor. The fact that the poor are being given money (essentially for no work) doesn’t make it a “socialist” plan, it is merely a proposition to address a perceived issue.
It helps to state the problem plainly — In the near future, 5 to 20 years, millions of people we be made redundant and unemployable due to the cheaper alternative of intelligent technology taking a variety of jobs (especially low-paying, entry-level jobs). The people who are holding these jobs, and future potential workers, will find themselves without work and without the potential to gain skills in areas that are not automatable. They will be consigned to poverty and will create a huge underclass that could erupt in rampant criminality or open rebellion due to their lack of prospects for a better life.
The real goal here is to come up with a way to help prevent social disruption from large sectors of the population suddenly losing income or the opportunity for income. A bullshit job may be one answer, and a guaranteed income may be another. A third may be some kind of combination of the two. However, just burying one’s head in the sand and throwing out conversation ending dismissals like “socialist” is about the most stupid thing one can do.