> If this comes to pass in America, you're going to have a large chunk of the population COMPLETELY dependent on the government's teat.

You won't, without substantial productivity improvements, because economics; UBI at any level that would, in the short term, make people willing to accept it and not seek outside income will rapidly lead to inflation from the increased cost of labor from the mass workforce exodus, rendering it no longer adequate to such lavish support.

In the long-run, with massive improvements in productivity and automation, sure, its conceivable that a well-designed (I mean this in terms of sustainability and stability) UBI could eventually result in a large portion of the population relying on it for their main source of income, but that's essentially a post-singularity economy by that point.

“Therefore a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens will always in every sort and kind of circumstance have need of the state and of him, and then he will always find them faithful.” -Machiavelli

I agree that instating UBI may become an excellent strategy for existing power structures to preserve themselves by paying out the minimal amount to prevent social unrest.

However, I think it will be nearly impossible to succeed in spinning it is "no strings attached" unless everyone really can continue to exercise all of their current rights (to free speech, to the democratic process, etc) without losing the benefits.

You make it sound like the state will be able to say "Don't speak in opposition to our policies or we'll let you starve". I'm skeptical.