this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
680 points (98.9% liked)

News

23376 readers
3245 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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"
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.