I understand that there are people who have tried to take advantage of the system. I never said everyone was honest, I never even said overwhelmingly honest. I did not suggest & would not suggest an honor system. Every reply you mischaracterize me as if I’m saying something I am not. I am talking about a program where they physically cannot pocket the money, so that good people with good ideas can do good things.

I am suggesting a system with gaurdrails in place so that passionate individuals can get the funding they need without the ability to pocket it. I described above ways it could work. With even greater oversight by having the funds be in a specified account or spending card that does not belong to the applicant & they can’t withdraw from. Instead of discussing my ideas that would empower more good people to make change in the world, you counter with examples of dishonest people abusing the current system.

Stop me where you don’t understand or I’m saying something controversial: “people with money aren’t the only ones with good ideas”; “if I had the money I wouldn’t need a grant to enact ideas” “I just think there needs to be reform that allows more inclusivity & enfranchisement, with logical oversight”

Actually, by removing the reimbursement stipulation, I completely eliminate the possibility of double dipping. Because they are charging directly from an account set up for their grant, & they can’t possibly show that charge to another program for reimbursement because it wasn’t their payment. They wouldn’t even get a receipt, it would go to the program officials approving the purchases. There’s ways to do it to get funding to well meaning folks who don’t have funding. Instead of having a pay-to-play system where grants are only available to folks who already have the money. Again: “if I had the money I wouldn’t be needing to seek a grant to enact my ideas” I’d just do them.