CDZ The polarization of American politics.

[320 Years of History]

Suppose in your mentoring, you realized your mentee was needing something you could afford to provide... like, say, a pair of dress shoes. Which action would you prefer to take... A.) Give him $100 to go buy some nice dress shoes... or B.) Take him to a place you know of that has nice dress shoes, have him fitted and then pay for the shoes?

BTW, what inspired you to create an allegory for public assistance that interposes a discretionary item, dress shoes, with non-discretionary items that the government aims to provide, food, clothing and shelter? For example:

• Non-discretionary: shoes, housing, clothing
• Discretionary: dress shoes, luxury housing, gourmet food, "designer" clothing (yes, all clothing was designed by someone, but I think you know what I mean)

 

[oldsoul]

No, they are not. However, when one is below a certain income threshold, one pays nothing for these services, hence they are free, to the recipient at least. That is the point I was making.

What is it about an income level that makes you entitled to the labor and effort of another? I'm sorry you think that way but I am really curious as to WHY you think that way?

It is certainly not a mindset that helps anyone, it simply encourages laziness and lack of motivation. And that is the whole entire problem with your social welfare programs... they don't work. They foster a dependency class.

I DO NOT agree, I am simply stating FACT. That is the way it is. Whether or not one agrees, it is fact. How is this unclear to you?

 

[Boss]

Suppose in your mentoring, you realized your mentee was needing something you could afford to provide... like, say, a pair of dress shoes. Which action would you prefer to take... A.) Give him $100 to go buy some nice dress shoes... or B.) Take him to a place you know of that has nice dress shoes, have him fitted and then pay for the shoes?

BTW, what inspired you to create an allegory for public assistance that interposes a discretionary item, dress shoes, with non-discretionary items that the government aims to provide, food, clothing and shelter? For example:

• Non-discretionary: shoes, housing, clothing
• Discretionary: dress shoes, luxury housing, gourmet food, "designer" clothing (yes, all clothing was designed by someone, but I think you know what I mean)

The point was to demonstrate that handing someone a check with no expectation is seldom going to result in motivated effort on part of the recipient. I'm trying to illustrate my points by using your mentoring as an example but you seem to be missing my points.

In your latest rebuttal, you say "it takes money AND mentoring" but when our government sends out that monthly assistance check, it does not come with a mentor. It is as effective as your mentoring would be if the only thing you ever did was dole out money to people you thought needed help.

I realize there are certain people who need some level of financial assistance. I don't mind some level of emergency aid for those who find themselves in such a predicament, but we've gone WAY beyond that in this country. Any government "help" program should include some degree of expectation to instill motivation on part of the recipient. Otherwise, there is no motivation and you're only enabling dependency. Simply enabling dependency on government is NOT helping anyone.

 

[320 Years of History]

The point was to demonstrate that handing someone a check with no expectation is seldom going to result in motivated effort on part of the recipient. I'm trying to illustrate my points by using your mentoring as an example but you seem to be missing my points.

I'm not missing the point. AFAIK, to receive public assistance, one must meet certain expectations, one of which is participating in either finding a job or obtaining training to get a job. Am I mistaken? Moreover, many public assistance recipients actually have a job, but it's one that doesn't pay enough.

 

[Boss]

I'm not missing the point. AFAIK, to receive public assistance, one must meet certain expectations, one of which is participating in either finding a job or obtaining training to get a job. Am I mistaken? Moreover, many public assistance recipients actually have a job, but it's one that doesn't pay enough.

Have you ever watched the TV commercials of the crazy guy with the question mark suit.... running around Washington D.C. waving his book about how to get Government money?

I understand that Bill Clinton, forced by the '94 Republican revolution, reformed welfare so that long-term recipients were required to work if they fell within certain parameters. But "disability" is the new welfare system. And you can see TV commercials from their men telling you they will get your benefit check if you give them a portion. You have two democrat candidates running for president who promised to give people free college tuition and they're still promising free health care.

The foundation of the idea that giving money out is somehow addressing a problem or need is bankrupting our nation and producing a dependent class. I don't think you want to see what happens when the government can no longer support these dependents. At this point, they are about half of the economy. Well when the money from government runs dry, what is going to happen to the economy? Good things? What about people who need the money but there is no more money? Bright futures for them?

Liberals just think there is a magical endless supply of money, we just have to shake down business and capitalists to get it. And they play on people's infantile emotions which are driven by this idea that handing out free things is helping people.

We can demonstrate with real world examples, that handing someone something for free does not help them. It is the mentoring, teaching, expecting... motivating. Free stuff doesn't address that. It doesn't help or improve the situation any more than changing your Facebook status.

 

[Boss]

On the subject of "Free Stuff" ...let me convey a little capitalist story for you.... this is from my own bistro business. We do music dinner shows on Thursday night. Thursday is because it's traditionally a slow night for business because it comes before Friday.

What we figured out was, when we gave a "free concert" to get people in... nobody came. We would flood places with fliers and spread the word on social media... still.... dead crowds. Nothing. So what we started doing was to print actual tickets up with a $25 general admission price. We then gave those tickets away to people. Boom... packed house! Paid the band, paid the staff, made a little profit.

So what we learned was, people valued the $25 ticket enough to use it. When something is free, you don't really have a regret about not using it. We had no customers for a free concert but a bistro full of customers who thought they were getting a $25 value. It's just an interesting story about something of value versus something for free.