Youth InterACT Grants

Overheard said :

jakez said :

Quite true. I was just using the arbitrary figure to extend the hypothetical hypothesis. (That’s either a tautlogical phrase or something to do with a triangle…)

I think you just ripped a hole in the space-time continuum.

justbands said :

> I believe it was a reasonable assumption about you and I haven’t had any evidence to the contrary yet.

True, true. I should have realised that one comment on RioTACT in regards to the admin costs to administer grants is now considered evidence of a blatent disregard for accounting for cost. My mistake.

& I still stand by my statement. What a wonderful world it would be when such schemes could be run without cost! When you find such a world, let me know.

You are right, I shouldn’t attack you personally. So instead I’ll simply say that your continual inability to comprehend both the meaning and lunacy of your own statement, is the height of idiocy, although I’m not calling you personally an idiot.

jakez said :

This goes out to everyone. I think some people are starting to think that the $50k is an actual figure. It’s an arbitrary hypothetical I picked out of the air to illustrate a point. As of yet, we don’t know how much this program costs.

Quite true. I was just using the arbitrary figure to extend the hypothetical hypothesis. (That’s either a tautlogical phrase or something to do with a triangle…)

> I believe it was a reasonable assumption about you and I haven’t had any evidence to the contrary yet.

True, true. I should have realised that one comment on RioTACT in regards to the admin costs to administer grants is now considered evidence of a blatent disregard for accounting for cost. My mistake.

& I still stand by my statement. What a wonderful world it would be when such schemes could be run without cost! When you find such a world, let me know.

justbands said :

Hey jakez…get fcuked you fcuking moron. How’s that feel? Keep your personal insults to yourself hey? Mods?

Anyway…you’re making some pretty big assumptions there, I have no “blatent disregard for accounting for cost”. I only pointed out that things cost money & that doesn’t mean it’s a waste.

Perhaps we could try arguing about facts & not assumptions.

Firstly, you swearing at me felt really great. Secondly, I believe it was a reasonable assumption about you and I haven’t had any evidence to the contrary yet. You included in black and white language, the costs as part of the rewards. I assure you I nearly fell off my chair when I read it.

This goes out to everyone. I think some people are starting to think that the $50k is an actual figure. It’s an arbitrary hypothetical I picked out of the air to illustrate a point. As of yet, we don’t know how much this program costs.

(sorry, you did point out it was only hypothetical)

> i think that the fact that the grants are outweighed by the admin cost is a bigger problem.

Sorry to be a pain on this point…but we don’t actually know that to be fact. For all we know the grants cost nothing to administer (unlikely, but as far as we know true!).

i think that the fact that the grants are outweighed by the admin cost is a bigger problem. the numbers should be the other way around. Even if this is hypothetical, $1500 per grant seems a bit light on, considering that these grants are for some pretty worthy causes and programs to do with ACT youth.

many grants for less worthy causes have been given out over the years by private enterprise, and not for small sums such as these.

Hey jakez…get fcuked you fcuking moron. How’s that feel? Keep your personal insults to yourself hey? Mods?

Anyway…you’re making some pretty big assumptions there, I have no “blatent disregard for accounting for cost”. I only pointed out that things cost money & that doesn’t mean it’s a waste.

Perhaps we could try arguing about facts & not assumptions.

Maybe could have been more efficiently administered, maybe not. I doubt that the recipients are that fussed about the administration cost.

I would venture (though couldn’t guarantee) that there would be more than $50k worth of intagible benefit that is generated from the conferring of the grants. Not that you could put a bucket at the end of it and objectively measure it, nor simply count up all the widgets and say, ‘There you go: $xxxx worth of benefit justifies the overheads’.

As a taxpayer, I think it’s a worthwhile investment in da youf.

Katie said :

I would be intersted in what the projects actually involve (specifically Stephanie Levy’s save a mate chill out tent), is this information available anywhere?

Yeah that would be some interesting information. I wonder if the proposals are (or will be) publically available. I’m interested in finding out more about Kacey Lam’s ‘think tank’.

justbands said :

> But because it’s not just your money being wasted you don’t give a shit.

Huh? Where did I say that? Things cost money, although I’d suspect that the staff member that runs this scheme also has many other duties & that costs are shared. I stick by my “it’s all an investment” statement though. Are you saying that we should only give grants to our youth if we can somehow magically do it without costing any money beyond the grants themselves? Can’t happen, won’t happen….ever.

Your blatant disregard for accounting for cost suggests that you care not for the money of others. If you spent $66k of your own money for something worth $16k I can only assume your attitude would be a lot different. Also I said from the beginning that it was a hypothetical number to illustrate a point, so don’t play that ‘oh you silly billy it’s shared costs’ line.

If you stick by your ‘it’s all an investment’ statement then you are a bloody fool. The youth get the $16k not the operation costs (COSTS!!!). I also never said that we should only do it if we can magically do it without ancilliary costs, I said (and this is a direct quote):

“When you do anything in your life you have to weigh the costs against the rewards and make a choice.”

I would be intersted in what the projects actually involve (specifically Stephanie Levy’s save a mate chill out tent), is this information available anywhere?

> But because it’s not just your money being wasted you don’t give a shit.

Huh? Where did I say that? Things cost money, although I’d suspect that the staff member that runs this scheme also has many other duties & that costs are shared. I stick by my “it’s all an investment” statement though. Are you saying that we should only give grants to our youth if we can somehow magically do it without costing any money beyond the grants themselves? Can’t happen, won’t happen….ever.

I’d be shocked if it really was that much, that would be outrageous.

A (hypothetical, admittedly) 75% overhead cost would be kind of ridiculous.
And would need some serious reporting and an independent audit.

justbands said :

> Also, I’m not sure you really understand johnboy’s question. He’s talking about the operating costs of the program. If they spend $16k on grants and $50k on administration, that’s not a good program, that’s a waste of money.

That’s a $66K investment in out youth (our future). If the program costs money to run, then it costs money to run.

No it’s not, it’s a $16k investment in our youth and a $50k investment in make work programs. When you do anything in your life you have to weigh the costs against the rewards and make a choice. I’m not saying it does cost $50k to run the program, I’m not saying the program is inefficient (I’m also not saying it isn’t inefficient), I’m merely putting forward a hypothetical to explain johnboys point, and a valid point it is.

If you spend $66k to give $16k to youth, you need to have a serious look at your costs. That’s the point. But because it’s not just your money being wasted you don’t give a shit.

I’m saying I’d have liked to have seen bigger grants given the pain and effort involved in any grants program.

For this kind of money they might have been better served with cake bakes.

> Also, I’m not sure you really understand johnboy’s question. He’s talking about the operating costs of the program. If they spend $16k on grants and $50k on administration, that’s not a good program, that’s a waste of money.

That’s a $66K investment in out youth (our future). If the program costs money to run, then it costs money to run.

It really would be a good thing if there was some kind of Program Performance Reporting against criteria made available for public inspection whenever there’s an announcement like this, especially around an election.

nik73 said :

Is the cost really an issue though? I don’t think so. It’s supporting and encouraging innovation and community spirit in our youth, which can only be a good thing, IMHO.

If I go out and buy a Kingswood for $50,000 that’s not a good thing. Of course cost matters.

Also, I’m not sure you really understand johnboy’s question. He’s talking about the operating costs of the program. If they spend $16k on grants and $50k on administration, that’s not a good program, that’s a waste of money.

Is the cost really an issue though? I don’t think so. It’s supporting and encouraging innovation and community spirit in our youth, which can only be a good thing, IMHO.