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.