Welcome to America, where greed is good, the environment can fuck itself, there is enough money for war but not clean water, and kindness is a sin.
The idea of people not starving even if they do not work is a "radical leftwing" idea here. That said, my beliefs coincide with what is described as "mildly conservative" in Europe, but that is nontheless lumped in with communism in the minds of most Americans.
I understand what fiscal conservatives mean when they say people should work if they want creature comforts, but letting people starve and die off is barbaric. I say let people have the bare minimum safety net and let them work from there.
The universal basic income idea is an old American idea, Nixon almost introduced it and it was a big idea prior to the creation of the welfare's social security, disability benefits, pensions etc. (I know there is no national insurance in the US, I'm not sure if there is some other kind of social insurance to pay for health services).
Its still possible to dig out the books in which its discussed, curiously, or maybe not, when Erich Fromm's book On Disobedience was recently reprinted it was approximately half the length of the original because besides his general "authority should be questioned" essays, which would jive as well with capitalist libertarians as it would anyone, the other essays made mention of basic income.
Though there was another book, a moral commentator considering whether or not guaranteed income would be "unchristian", at the time it was considered absolutely to be Christian, I'm guessing it was pre-christian right and pre-tele-evangelism which was the CR's precursor.
Fromm had an idea about an alternative to cash payments which amounting to general stores which would supply generic brand goods and food, thereby freeing up anyone from any subsistence compulsion to work, though he wasnt suggesting it because he thought anyone would squander their money or just buy a butt load of drugs with it, he just thought it was the logical extension of the idea that this system would be other than and parallel to the market for consumer goods and non-necessities for life.
There are precidents for it in other international ultra-conservative and ultra-orthodox communities in so far as I believe both the Israelis and some parts of the Islamic world subsidise individuals who have dedicated their entire lives to scriptural study or religious life, I'm not sure how this is evidenced.
Also Charles Murray, of the bell curve, the underclass and what it means to be libertarian fame, wrote one of the best basic income books I've ever read, called in your hands, a plan to replace the welfare state, or something like that. Murray's idea is a little diferent in that it involves annual lump sums, if anyone does squander it and they do not have family to depend upon then they must rely upon private charity of some description, no publically (tax funded) arranged charity what so ever. Most UBI advocates have mixed or hypotheticated schemes in mind which take into account the vulnerability of some communities through ignorance of fiscal responsibility.
In the UK one of the best, if not the best, advocate of basic income was actually a hardline Thatcherite economist, Samuel Britton, he had a lot of very conservative reasons for supporting the idea, in particular the restriction of the sphere of government, elimination of departmental administrative costs in the shape of salaries, wages, pensions and, basically, the replacement of all tax funded benefits, and a great may benefits in kind, by a single payment would go a long way to a "write down" of public spending expense in a globally competitive investor and resident capital environment.
Its all a lot different to my own socialist reasoning for the idea but those are still fine arguments.
