It's almost like if you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling.

Thank you for saying almost, which acknowledges that this isn't always the case.

Well yeah but I wouldn't say the rate that occurs is so awfully different from when people earn money. And both activities stimulate the economy so...

Plus I'm more addressing the ingrained idea (in the USA at least) that poor people are all addicts, druggies, alcoholics, unemployable, or terrible with money. Many addicts run the course of their addiction while holding down a job (otherwise they can't feed said addiction). At the same time, the fastest route to the streets in the US is medical costs, either by way of some kind of accident or acquiring a chronic disease or condition, or hell, even breaking a leg and not being able to work for a month.

Most people, and I'd say a large majority of them, if just given money not in the form of EBT stamps or some other patronizing ass "here, we'll help you out, but here's a catalog of rules you need to follow because you're obviously incompetent" method would lead to more people getting out of poverty.

The state of discourse in society on this topic is "not great", for the reasons you correctly point out, but what is not appreciated is the impact saying feel good things that are not true has on the thinking of those in opposing camps.

"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling." is not a true statement, and I assert that saying things like this can result in people on the "other side" of the political spectrum forming the opinion that you and your side is intellectually dishonest, because in fact, it is.

Feel free to say this is "irrelevant", but meanwhile politics in the West continues to become more and more polarized.

> "If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling." is not a true statement, and I assert that saying things like this can result in people on the "other side" of the political spectrum forming the opinion that you and your side is intellectually dishonest, because in fact, it is.

I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success, which is the closest current thing to replacing the American social welfare systems with "just giving people money." Their results are mixed, and likely will remain so as they are extremely desperate from one another to such a degree that you can't really form a consensus.

> I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success....

The issue here though is the implication, and even with some people the genuine belief, that it is true always. On average you are correct, yes, but if you consider that averages are not spread evenly, there are subsets (US states would be only one example) where the reality is very much different than the national average reflects. So, when you say "if the government does <x>, <y> WILL happen", and people KNOW that to be false (because they have seen past attempts fail), this is at least in part where part of the rift between political camps begins to form, or contributes to the overall problem. Furthermore, these "minor" differences of opinion can then be exploited by opportunistic politicians to have far more impact than they would otherwise.

A not terribly great illustration of this imho can be seen above - downvotes of this idea with no rebuttal illustrating it's wrongness. In the majority of the IRL & internet discussions I've been involved in, a rebuttal is never provided because "the left" considers this discussion to be over. They are correct, full stop. They do not need to address opinions different than their own, because they are wrong. To my mind, this is a very dangerous mentality, and leads to the very political climate we are seeing today.

Politics always has been and always will be a battle of ideas. Abandoning logic and resorting to force, mob rule, and covering ones eyes and ears does not lead to a successful outcome.

I believe that was a sarcastic addition to a sentence considered obviously true. Also seen in phrases like "it's almost like refugees are people!"

My point probably wasn't clear but is easier to make now....one of these sentences is always true, the other is not always true (but people like to pretend it is):

"Refugees are people."

"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling."