<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>vinyl7</author><text>Less than 35% of the $800 billion in PPP loans actually went to workers, say economists&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fastcompany.com&amp;#x2F;90713747&amp;#x2F;workers-800-billion-ppp-loans-economists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fastcompany.com&amp;#x2F;90713747&amp;#x2F;workers-800-billion-ppp...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>Spooky23</author><text>That’s how the critics of these programs spiked the programs. “Welfare Queens” were supposedly driving around with Cadillacs, so controls had to be in place.&lt;p&gt;I spent several years working on social services IT. The biggest welfare beneficiaries are companies like IBM, CSC, Accenture, Unisys, Northrup Grumman, etc and their employees.&lt;p&gt;That’s why some politicians were so terrified of the COVID relief programs. The government efficiently provided direct cash aid to millions of people with minimal fraud while the complex controlled systems like unemployment insurance were just raided by fraudsters. We made people’s lives measurably better, saved the economy from
collapse, etc, and then took it all away.</text></item><item><author>Nifty3929</author><text>The main problem with government poverty programs is that they usually focus on &lt;i&gt;spending&lt;/i&gt; money instead of &lt;i&gt;giving&lt;/i&gt; money to people who need it. That is, the government spends money on things, but this is a very inefficient or even counterproductive way to help. And a lot of the time it just means that the money is going to whoever is politically connected.&lt;p&gt;A much more efficient way to help people is just to give them money directly, and then people can spend it on whatever they think they need.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>‘America does so much more to subsidise affluence than alleviate poverty’</title><url>https://www.ft.com/content/6218aa73-ae25-46fc-9503-f2f45b8db47f</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>orzig</author><text>&amp;gt; Minimal fraud&lt;p&gt;You’re going to have to be more specific or offer some evidence, because a cursory search suggests there was &lt;i&gt;massive&lt;/i&gt; fraud.&lt;p&gt;To take the least sensationalized source: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.justice.gov&amp;#x2F;opa&amp;#x2F;pr&amp;#x2F;justice-department-takes-action-against-covid-19-fraud&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.justice.gov&amp;#x2F;opa&amp;#x2F;pr&amp;#x2F;justice-department-takes-acti...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;They’re estimating more than half a billion dollars and are just getting started.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Spooky23</author><text>That’s how the critics of these programs spiked the programs. “Welfare Queens” were supposedly driving around with Cadillacs, so controls had to be in place.&lt;p&gt;I spent several years working on social services IT. The biggest welfare beneficiaries are companies like IBM, CSC, Accenture, Unisys, Northrup Grumman, etc and their employees.&lt;p&gt;That’s why some politicians were so terrified of the COVID relief programs. The government efficiently provided direct cash aid to millions of people with minimal fraud while the complex controlled systems like unemployment insurance were just raided by fraudsters. We made people’s lives measurably better, saved the economy from
collapse, etc, and then took it all away.</text></item><item><author>Nifty3929</author><text>The main problem with government poverty programs is that they usually focus on &lt;i&gt;spending&lt;/i&gt; money instead of &lt;i&gt;giving&lt;/i&gt; money to people who need it. That is, the government spends money on things, but this is a very inefficient or even counterproductive way to help. And a lot of the time it just means that the money is going to whoever is politically connected.&lt;p&gt;A much more efficient way to help people is just to give them money directly, and then people can spend it on whatever they think they need.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>‘America does so much more to subsidise affluence than alleviate poverty’</title><url>https://www.ft.com/content/6218aa73-ae25-46fc-9503-f2f45b8db47f</url></story>