• Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah no, there definitely is wise spending.

    Spending all your money at the casino, spending all your money on alcohol, etc. That’s majority different from spending money on food, shelter, an education, etc.

    There’s also a difference between spending money that was given to you vs spending money that you did something to earn. That’s part of why welfare is such a contentious program in the country. “I want them to have food not half a dozen kids, 17 pets, brand new phones, and cigarettes.”

    The fact of the matter is, most recipients don’t spend the money on that and they do spend it wisely just like the folks did here.

    But yeah, if you’re asking for me or anyone else to give up a portion of our salaries to create universal basic income, etc, it needs to be proven to be a net benefit, and how “wisely” that money is being spent is important.

    We wouldn’t rejoice at a politician taking more money from the public fund for a personal trip to the Bahamas. If it’s shown this money just becomes vacation money, it’s clearly not needed and frankly shouldn’t be given.

    Understanding how the money is spent is important.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      The fact of the matter is, most recipients don’t spend the money on that and they do spend it wisely just like the folks did here.

      And the fact of the matter is a lot of money is wasted on administration making sure those people who wouldn’t waste their money aren’t wasting their money.

      Think about it this way: for X amount of tax dollars you could help 10 families in need and cover the administration costs to make sure they are spending it wisely.
      For the same X amount of dollars you could help 20 families in need with no administrative oversight, and 1 of those families doesn’t need or misuses the money.

      In the second scenario you’re still helping 9 more families that need it at no additional cost.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Because it works out so well when we just let people run away with money?

        You’re making the same argument that a lot of Republicans make. “Corporations will be honest with the public money we give them, we don’t need all this administrative overhead.”

        There’s definitely something to be said for minimizing administrative overhead. However, that’s a very different argument than “there’s no such thing as wise spending and we just shouldn’t care where the money is going.”

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          And here we have a study demonstrating that people will be smart with the money. I’m not saying “just trust me on this,” we have actual evidence.

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            So, in summary…

            • Original comment: “We don’t need studies”
            • Me: “Yes, we do need studies. This is important data to keep track of to make sure the money is being put where it’s most desperately needed.”
            • You: “We don’t need to keep track of where money is going, people are honest. We have studies!”

            In other words…

            • Original comment: “Studies are useless!”
            • Me: “Studies are not useless”
            • You: “Studies are useless, because we have proof that studies are useless, via a study”
            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Original comment: we don’t need oversight.
              You: we should have oversight because people might waste money.
              Me: even if people waste money that will be less money wasted than is spent on the oversight, allowing more people to be helped.

              • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Actual original comment’s very first sentence:

                The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk

                You: putting words in my mouth, doubling down, and missing the point.

                Me: Over this.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Actual original comment’s very first sentence:

                  The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk

                  So as I said: saying we don’t need oversight.

                  You: putting words in my mouth, doubling down, and missing the point.

                  You:

                  But yeah, if you’re asking for me or anyone else to give up a portion of our salaries to create universal basic income, etc, it needs to be proven to be a net benefit, and how “wisely” that money is being spent is important.

                  Sure sounds like you’re saying “we should have oversight because people might waste money.” I don’t see how that is putting words in your mouth. If I am misrepresenting your point the correct way to respond is with a clarification or restating of your point. A generic “yOuR pUtTiNg WoRdS iN mY mOuTh” and going off in a huff does nothing to clarify point or show how it was “misrepresented.”

                  I was in no way saying your argument was a bad opinion to have, just that I disagreed with it and gave a counter argument.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Jesus christ someone makes a well-stated, thoughtful response and your slack-jawed response is “status quo worse!” like that addresses any of the points made. It’s no wonder “the left” in the U.S. are such fucking losers if this is what the brain trust has to offer.