2026-05-03 04:23 UTC
There is some nuance yes. But it's also easy to see that it's cheaper to deal with a problem early than it is to deal with the consequences after the fact, especially if that second step is done poorly.
It's not one or the other, since giving money won't stop all crime or violence. Rather its about finding the right balance between the different places that the money can go. Right now, in many places around the world, we might be putting too much money into policing, and that money could be better spent on other programs.
Replies (2)
-
@Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2026-05-03 07:11
We love trying to fix the symptoms rather than the cause.
-
@Fizz@lemmy.nz 2026-05-03 04:45
Yes I agree with what you're saying but the tweet ignores that you're likely already doing both giving money to cops and giving money to poor people so the nuance of effectiveness of where to allocate the extra funds is not as simple as the tweet puts. I can think of a ton of times where increasing welfare does not impact crime statistics and increasing cop spending does and vice versa. I really do wish it was as simple as the tweet makes it out to be because throwing money at a problem is actually pretty easy.