“And that is the very rhetoric of communism”
No it is not.
Communism is where all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Communism and socialism are both means tested.
What I described is equitable and fair even if it is not necessarily desirable. That is, all government subsidies, grants, etc. should NOT be means tested. The only test should be if you are a citizen.
Do we need a housing subsidy? a food subsidy? a medical care subsidy? Maybe, maybe not. But giving the same amount to all citizens whether they have any wealth or income along with very wealthy, high-income citizens would at least be equitable.
If you think what I described is Communism, you need to study some more. It isn’t. Such a plan would be anathema to any socialist or communist.
Again, I am not advocating a basic income, but I am saying it is not necessarily anti-conservative. Means testing is anti-conservative, progressive, liberal, socialistic, and moves us toward Communism.
Ironically, you want MORE means testing. So do a lot of misguided conservative leaning people because they realize that government subsidies are not going away, so they consider it a necessary evil. And the idea is that stricter means testing is a way to reduce government dependency.
Only it never really works out that way.
We need to greatly restrict how government can spend money. It ought to live within a budget. Perhaps the budget should adapt to economic conditions. Perhaps government salaries should also go up and down based on how much citizens are earning. And perhaps all government subsidies should require a periodic public vote. Maybe votes should be weighted by how much taxes each voter contributes. That might counterbalance the inclination to vote ones self a raise.
It is possible to implement a social safety net without moving us toward socialism or communism. Getting rid of means testing would be part of what is necessary to do this.
And paying our enemies to immigrate and take over is certainly not a way to implement a social safety net in a conservative fashion. We must quit that.
To me the ONLY way to do a universal income in the USA is everyone of legal age gets it and it is exactly the same for everyone regardless of how many kids you have etc.
If you start saying Bob gets more than Bill because Bob has more kids then we all know what will happen in a few short years. You are right once the "means testing" starts then it becomes "Social Engineering" and that always leads to disaster.
If you do a basic income for everyone and eliminate welfare foodstamps etc. what will happen is the government will be in constant search of the proper amount the Basic income should be. It will probably implode the system faster than anything else and sadly I feel imploding the federal boondoggle known as the Federal Reserve System and the Big Spending Congress and their muscle the IRS is the only way we will ever get Fiscal Discipline back in Federal Spending.
Always the socialists/communists try and describe what socialism/communism is while claiming at the same time that a proposal within the dogma thereof is not. No; any governmental “safety net” is socialism/communism. What is dubiously termed a “safety net” is the domain of private charity and private enterprise.
Any “subsidy” is one’s own earnings taken by the government and returned to them minus the government’s “broker’s fee”. Nothing equitable about it at all, and no fit inside the philosophy of US conservatism. Start making the people comfortable in poverty and society breaks down.