CDZ The polarization of American politics.

[Iceweasel]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

There are things I can agree with, on the right. I think schools need to be brought back to more local levels as opposed to federal. I think the left has a tendancy to go overboard in their anti-Christian scrubbing of public places. I see no reason not to acknowledge that our country's main heritage is Judeo-Christian and enjoy Christmas pagents, songs, nativities etc as expressions of that heritage instead of insisting it be secularized or removed. Same with certain aspects of public prayer like before games.

I think both the right and left agree on the influence of money in politics being harmful - at least I agree with that.

Money in politics is a big one, and I agree that there needs to be reform. Many in the left complain about corporate money and we on the right counter with union money. Would you agree to getting rid of both?

Absolutely.

Citizen's United opened the door to both.

My feeling is that if you can't be sent to prison because you are not an actual person, then you shouldn't be able to contribute money to politics.

And yet you NEVER hear of liberals complaining about unions funneling money into Democrat coffers. Go figure!

 

[Iceweasel]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Once government is responsible for feeding, housing and clothing its' citizens they are no longer citizens. They are wards of the state. This is what the left has been bulldozing ahead on so the polarization is of their creation.

 

[Iceweasel]

The term "socialist" seems to have lost all meaning these days. What Bernie Sanders supported was a more equitable capitalistic system. That being said......he didn't win, wasn't really all that close. The neo conservative/liberal won, which tends to support my point.

Bernie didn't win because he was never really in the game. It was all for show and the Democrat party didn't care who got hurt or duped. There's no such thing as equitable capitalism, that's an oxymoron. Bernie, quite simply wants to tax and spend more and more so is right in line with the modern Democrat party that is racing headlong into socialism.

 

[Boss]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

 

[oldsoul]

While this is true, in my opinion as well, of politicians, I do not believe it to be true of all "ordinary" citizens. That, I believe is who the OP is attempting to address, "ordinary" citizens. It is my belief that politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle are guilty of "selling" their influence, but I don't think that is the point of this thread. As I see it, this thread is about attempting to find "common ground" between opposing ideologies, not necessarily between the political parties.
If this type of discussion where to occur in a "grass-roots" way, on a large scale in this country, I believe the politicians would have little choice but to follow our lead.

Here is an analogy... It's like a wife who is being beaten by her husband trying to "find common ground" with him. They talk, and she suggests he only beat her when she does something really bad, and he agrees... they've reached a compromise. Has anything been resolved by this? No, because he is still going to determine when she has done something bad.

I am a conservative but I am like virtually every human with compassion, I don't want poor people to suffer, I want clean air and water. But the liberal viewpoint is that I don't care about helping the poor and I don't want clean air and water. Compromising with their viewpoint is not going to solve the problem because they get to define when the poor have been sufficiently helped... which never happens. They get to define when air and water is sufficiently protected... again... never happens. So my compromise simply aids them in moving the ball forward for their viewpoint, at the same time, it reinforces their viewpoint. I've submitted to their view and they reap the benefits of that. My viewpoint is never acknowledged... it is abandoned for the sake of compromise.

I contend that your analogy works for the politicians, however, for the "run of the mill ordinary liberal leaning" person out there I disagree. True there are ideologues that would fit into your analogy, but I believe they are the exception not the rule. You are free to disagree with me, I just do not see the evidence of your position, should you still disagree. If that is, indeed your position, by all means convince me.

 

[320 Years of History]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

Red:
Details: The short of what I do is help my mentees learn and exhibit the habits -- behavioral and metal -- of high-achieving people.

• Provide "life" guidance by explaining how life works, how things "fit together" as a whole, for example:
  • School --> college --> career development
  • Vision --> strategy --> tactics --> act --> evaluate progress --> adjust strategy, tactics or vision as needed --> revise plan --> keep going
• Help with homework and explain scholastic/academic concepts
• Teach study habits, skills and techniques
• Provide inspiration, motivation and help build their self-confidence
• Teach goal setting and goal and task prioritization skills
• Help them develop plans for achieving specific goals they set for themselves
  
• Teach or reinforce analytical skills
• Teach or reinforce problem solving skills
• Teach or reinforce objective thinking skills
• Assist with school applications
• Provide opportunities for discovering things they otherwise would not
• Introduce them to people who live the kinds of lives my mentees may want to live when they become adults
• Introduce them to people who have the kinds of careers my mentees may want to have when they become adults
• Provide limited financial support when it's critically necessary and there is no other viable alternative

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

 

[oldsoul]

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Well, that's how it should work at least. LOL Having grown-up partially on public assistance, I can assure you the system is set-up (intentionally or not) to de-incentivize people from improving their "lot in life". Unless of course one does so in a dramatic enough way as to off-set the "penalties" (sorry can't think of a better word) for working.

Let me give you an example. When my Mother would want to earn some extra money to provide something special for us, she would have to work "off the books", usually for a friend that owned a motel. That money would have to stay as cash and never appear in her bank account, otherwise her "assistance" would be lowered by that exact amount. Likewise, when friends or relatives would give money to me or my siblings as gifts, it would have to stay as cash, lest her "benefits" be reduced. We even had to put our (us kids) savings accounts under relatives' names in order to keep them. I understand some things have changed since that time, but have they really changed that much in this regard?

 

[Boss]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

Red:
Details: The short of what I do is help my mentees learn and exhibit the habits -- behavioral and metal -- of high-achieving people.

• Provide "life" guidance by explaining how life works, how things "fit together" as a whole, for example:
  • School --> college --> career development
  • Vision --> strategy --> tactics --> act --> evaluate progress --> adjust strategy, tactics or vision as needed --> revise plan --> keep going
• Help with homework and explain scholastic/academic concepts
• Teach study habits, skills and techniques
• Provide inspiration, motivation and help build their self-confidence
• Teach goal setting and goal and task prioritization skills
• Help them develop plans for achieving specific goals they set for themselves
  
• Teach or reinforce analytical skills
• Teach or reinforce problem solving skills
• Teach or reinforce objective thinking skills
• Assist with school applications
• Provide opportunities for discovering things they otherwise would not
• Introduce them to people who live the kinds of lives my mentees may want to live when they become adults
• Introduce them to people who have the kinds of careers my mentees may want to have when they become adults
• Provide limited financial support when it's critically necessary and there is no other viable alternative

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Okay, what if I said, screw all that... let's just give them $100 and hope for the best? You see, that's what government entitlements do. There is no motivational factor. There is no inspiration. There is no instruction or teaching. It's simply saying... screw that, here's a check.. .good luck!

I have no problem with providing temporary help for people who find themselves indigent. I don't even have a problem with a portion of tax dollars being used for this. But anything we do should come with some level of expectation or require some degree of motivation. Otherwise, it is counterproductive to the goal of actually HELPING them.

 

[oldsoul]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

Red:
Details: The short of what I do is help my mentees learn and exhibit the habits -- behavioral and metal -- of high-achieving people.

• Provide "life" guidance by explaining how life works, how things "fit together" as a whole, for example:
  • School --> college --> career development
  • Vision --> strategy --> tactics --> act --> evaluate progress --> adjust strategy, tactics or vision as needed --> revise plan --> keep going
• Help with homework and explain scholastic/academic concepts
• Teach study habits, skills and techniques
• Provide inspiration, motivation and help build their self-confidence
• Teach goal setting and goal and task prioritization skills
• Help them develop plans for achieving specific goals they set for themselves
  
• Teach or reinforce analytical skills
• Teach or reinforce problem solving skills
• Teach or reinforce objective thinking skills
• Assist with school applications
• Provide opportunities for discovering things they otherwise would not
• Introduce them to people who live the kinds of lives my mentees may want to live when they become adults
• Introduce them to people who have the kinds of careers my mentees may want to have when they become adults
• Provide limited financial support when it's critically necessary and there is no other viable alternative

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Okay, what if I said, screw all that... let's just give them $100 and hope for the best? You see, that's what government entitlements do. There is no motivational factor. There is no inspiration. There is no instruction or teaching. It's simply saying... screw that, here's a check.. .good luck!

I have no problem with providing temporary help for people who find themselves indigent. I don't even have a problem with a portion of tax dollars being used for this. But anything we do should come with some level of expectation or require some degree of motivation. Otherwise, it is counterproductive to the goal of actually HELPING them.

Except you are leaving out the myriad of other opportunities offered. Such as subsidized/free college tuition, free classes/job training, free personal finance classes, etc. Also, there is a pretty strict time limit for receiving benefits in most cases (built-in incentive?).

 

[320 Years of History]

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Well, that's how it should work at least. LOL Having grown-up partially on public assistance, I can assure you the system is set-up (intentionally or not) to de-incentivize people from improving their "lot in life". Unless of course one does so in a dramatic enough way as to off-set the "penalties" (sorry can't think of a better word) for working.

Let me give you an example. When my Mother would want to earn some extra money to provide something special for us, she would have to work "off the books", usually for a friend that owned a motel. That money would have to stay as cash and never appear in her bank account, otherwise her "assistance" would be lowered by that exact amount. Likewise, when friends or relatives would give money to me or my siblings as gifts, it would have to stay as cash, lest her "benefits" be reduced. We even had to put our (us kids) savings accounts under relatives' names in order to keep them. I understand some things have changed since that time, but have they really changed that much in this regard?

What you've described is clearly a problem; however, it's still an aspect of the money/tangible resources variable of the equation. The point I made is that having the money to secure one's basic needs is just one part of the the problem folks face. The other part of the problem is learning the skills and habits that lead to success (life-living success and financial success); it's acquiring a set of intangible skills and resources and applying them effectively.

When, for example, a person thinks to themselves, "I enjoy doing XYZ. I want a job that lets me do XYZ," and they don't know what kinds of careers incorporate or consist mainly of doing XYZ, they are stuck with entering a career whereby they do none of XYZ. Now, the individual can commence to research careers to find out which of them entails what they want to do, but when they have no idea where or how to conduct that investigation, they won't get very far.

Another example is just in identifying what they want and understanding what about it they like, and why they want what they want. I've seen this among young people at every economic level of society. Ask young folks a question about why they want something (of importance) they've said they want, and "I don't know" is quite often their reply. Ask them what they want to do "when they grow up," and they'll reply by telling you what job they think they want to perform. Ask them what they think they like about being a "whatever" and eight of ten kids (I'm talking high school juniors and seniors) will respond, "I don't know." Ask them if they've bothered to find out just what the work of a "whatever" entails on a day to day basis. Fewer than 1% of them will be able to answer "yes," unless their parents or other close relative happen to have the career the kids want to pursue.

Those are but two examples of what I mean when I say that tossing money at the problem solves only part of the overall problem. And just to be clear, the overall problem from a political and public policy perspective isn't that people don't have money; it's that the county has a lot of people who have no idea of, or have ill conceived ideas of, how to self-actualize, that is, how to go about making their dreams come to fruition. Showing/helping people figure out how to do that is the thing that's needed in addition to money for basic needs.

Now as for the issue you specifically noted, well, that's a program design issue in a sense; however, I also understand why the program is designed that way. As we both agree:

1. One obtains public assistance in order to have food, clothing, shelter and other basic needs met.
2. With those needs met, recipients of public assistance must devote all their efforts toward building the skills and habits needed to no longer need public assistance.

Now what that means is that "little extras" just don't have a place in the picture while one receives public assistance. I understand that a parent will want to make those extras available from time to time. I know that the system isn't structured to give those "little extras" legitimacy among the priorities of individuals receiving public assistance. That one obtains, via one's own toil, money to pay for those extras necessarily raises the question, "Why should taxpayers provide one with that sum when one can obtain it on one's own?" You see, the system is currently designed to provide for non-extras so that one does not need to devote time to doing so and one can instead devote one's time to acquiring the intangible resources (skills, habits and so on) that one must have to no longer need public assistance. The sooner one accomplishes that, the sooner the extras can enter the picture.

Understanding that is the model upon which U.S. public assistance programs are based is what makes the mentoring I do effective. I don't have to like that's how the programs are designed; my mentees and their parents don't have to like it. But insofar as they are dependent on it, what they must do to get out of the system is "play the game" they way the system intends it to be played. When the game is football and one plays it like soccer, one will lose. The same principle applies to public assistance.

I provide my mentees with the things that money doesn't buy. If I weren't to provide my mentees (sometimes their parents too) with the types of guidance I described earlier, they'd have to acquire them elsewhere. Seeing as they are skills and abilities that one can't buy at Walmart, and they are traits that have to be learned, applied and seen to bear fruit, it's highly unlikely my mentees will learn them if someone doesn't make a point of teaching them. My parents taught them to me, but my parents are also high achieving individuals: Mother was a doctor in private practice; Daddy was an engineer and still is a business owner. They both understood the intangibles and they passed them on to me. My mentees and their parents, and their parents before them, don't have anyone to show them those things. That is, I think, the situation for most folks. (And no, I don't think they are stupid for not sussing out the intangibles on their own.)

 

[320 Years of History]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

Red:
Details: The short of what I do is help my mentees learn and exhibit the habits -- behavioral and metal -- of high-achieving people.

• Provide "life" guidance by explaining how life works, how things "fit together" as a whole, for example:
  • School --> college --> career development
  • Vision --> strategy --> tactics --> act --> evaluate progress --> adjust strategy, tactics or vision as needed --> revise plan --> keep going
• Help with homework and explain scholastic/academic concepts
• Teach study habits, skills and techniques
• Provide inspiration, motivation and help build their self-confidence
• Teach goal setting and goal and task prioritization skills
• Help them develop plans for achieving specific goals they set for themselves
  
• Teach or reinforce analytical skills
• Teach or reinforce problem solving skills
• Teach or reinforce objective thinking skills
• Assist with school applications
• Provide opportunities for discovering things they otherwise would not
• Introduce them to people who live the kinds of lives my mentees may want to live when they become adults
• Introduce them to people who have the kinds of careers my mentees may want to have when they become adults
• Provide limited financial support when it's critically necessary and there is no other viable alternative

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Okay, what if I said, screw all that... let's just give them $100 and hope for the best? You see, that's what government entitlements do. There is no motivational factor. There is no inspiration. There is no instruction or teaching. It's simply saying... screw that, here's a check.. .good luck!

I have no problem with providing temporary help for people who find themselves indigent. I don't even have a problem with a portion of tax dollars being used for this. But anything we do should come with some level of expectation or require some degree of motivation. Otherwise, it is counterproductive to the goal of actually HELPING them.

Red:
I agree with you in that regard. Tossing money at indigents and hoping they "figure it out" is not alone, or at all for that matter, going to allow them to become self supporting achievers. That will achieve precisely what it does achieve: keep people from starving and dying in the streets. But as a wealthy nation, we have an obligation also to prevent our citizens from starving and dying in the streets; thus giving people monetary (or monetary equivalent) resources must happen.

The fact of the matter is that money solves the problems it solves, but it doesn't solve every problem. We as a people are very good at solving problems using money. Indeed, we prefer that solution approach, so much so that we at times delude ourselves into thinking that money can solve the totality of a problem. We do that because it takes far less involvement to write a check than it does to give of one's time, to do the types of things I do as a mentor.

Also, and we adopt tautological approach to solving our national problems; however, the solutions that work aren't binary in nature. The problems are not solved by money or mentoring (for example). They are not surmounted by money or motivation. It's money and motivation, money and mentoring that solves them.

Folks don't like subsidizing the cost of food, shelter and clothing for indigents. Do you have any idea of how much more it'd cost taxpayers to provide the mentoring (motivational and instructional) input of the sort I give my mentees were we to even attempt to pay for it out of our taxes? Trust me, it's wholly beyond our means to pay for -- we don't right now have the money to do that -- because the mentoring workforce would become the single largest "workforce" in the country. I mean really. Taking the ~45M people on public assistance and assigning a mentor to each of them such that no mentor has more than five mentees, we'd need 15M mentors, assuming each of them does the things I noted earlier. Do the math assuming one hour per day per mentee at just $10/hour....That is something we quite simply haven't the money to pay for even if money could buy it.

So, no, we cannot just throw money at the problem and think that'll be enough, but we also can't not throw money at the problem and think that the problem can be solved. Money is just one thing that's needed.

Notes:

1. I say five because mentoring five young people, including my own three kids, at one time is all I can manage and still do my job and enjoy my life, and at the same time not have to reduce the quantity/quality of mentoring input I deliver. I don't, for this context, see it as fair to ask of someone else more than I can do.
2. Three of my close friends mentor as I do. We jokingly call it "parenting lite," but that's about what it amounts to. We interact with each of our mentees almost daily, even though we each have very heavy travel schedules and often aren't in D.C., which is where our mentees live. We Skype/talk on the phone or whatever it takes to make sure they are getting the guidance they need everyday. We have to do that because we know their parents cannot, and in some cases their parents just won't give it to them, or won't in an effective or timely manner.

 

[jwoodie]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

Red:
Details: The short of what I do is help my mentees learn and exhibit the habits -- behavioral and metal -- of high-achieving people.

• Provide "life" guidance by explaining how life works, how things "fit together" as a whole, for example:
  • School --> college --> career development
  • Vision --> strategy --> tactics --> act --> evaluate progress --> adjust strategy, tactics or vision as needed --> revise plan --> keep going
• Help with homework and explain scholastic/academic concepts
• Teach study habits, skills and techniques
• Provide inspiration, motivation and help build their self-confidence
• Teach goal setting and goal and task prioritization skills
• Help them develop plans for achieving specific goals they set for themselves
  
• Teach or reinforce analytical skills
• Teach or reinforce problem solving skills
• Teach or reinforce objective thinking skills
• Assist with school applications
• Provide opportunities for discovering things they otherwise would not
• Introduce them to people who live the kinds of lives my mentees may want to live when they become adults
• Introduce them to people who have the kinds of careers my mentees may want to have when they become adults
• Provide limited financial support when it's critically necessary and there is no other viable alternative

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Okay, what if I said, screw all that... let's just give them $100 and hope for the best? You see, that's what government entitlements do. There is no motivational factor. There is no inspiration. There is no instruction or teaching. It's simply saying... screw that, here's a check.. .good luck!

I have no problem with providing temporary help for people who find themselves indigent. I don't even have a problem with a portion of tax dollars being used for this. But anything we do should come with some level of expectation or require some degree of motivation. Otherwise, it is counterproductive to the goal of actually HELPING them.

Except you are leaving out the myriad of other opportunities offered. Such as subsidized/free college tuition, free classes/job training, free personal finance classes, etc. Also, there is a pretty strict time limit for receiving benefits in most cases (built-in incentive?).

These arguments have been made for the past 50 years without any tangible results except for an ever growing percentage of the population dependent on government programs and a huge national debt. Are these the results you desire?

 

[Boss]

Except you are leaving out the myriad of other opportunities offered. Such as subsidized/free college tuition, free classes/job training, free personal finance classes, etc. Also, there is a pretty strict time limit for receiving benefits in most cases (built-in incentive?).

Sorry, I don't believe in fairy tales or fantasy worlds. Education and health care aren't free. Nothing is FREE... someone has to pay for it. You can say that is "selfish and greedy" but I think it's far more selfish and greedy to think you're entitled to what other people have worked hard to earn.

I didn't come from a rich family... I worked two part-time jobs to earn money to pay for my college education. I didn't like that... I hate and deplore working for other people. I like being my own boss but you do what you have to do. I sure as fuck didn't go through that so I could turn around and pay for "free stuff" for others. Why can't they bust their asses like I did? Why am I somehow obligated to pay for their things?

When it comes to liberals, there is no "strict limit" ...those fucking go out the window and they whine and moan about the poor people who are going to be kicked to the curb by mean old greedy republicans who hate minorities and such. So don't feed me that.. it's pure bullshit.

Now let's look at something like Peach Grants program in Georgia... I was a big supporter of this when Democrat, Zell Miller was governor. Yes... My Conservative ass was fully supportive of a Democrat program! Why? Because it came with an expectation and motivational factor... you had to maintain a B average in high school to qualify for a state grant for college... I had no problem with that. The lottery paid for it and millions have received a great college education they could never have afforded otherwise. That's FAR different than some pie-in-the-sky notion of FREE COLLEGE TUITION because you're somehow entitled.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't believe in fairy tales or fantasy worlds.

Off Topic:
Hmmm...I'm a Christian, so I know that I do believe in at least one fantasy world.

 

[320 Years of History]

I understood your angle. I happen to think, however, that the solution must be multidimensional: the economic support governments proffer is essential for people need food, shelter and clothing, but so too is the community-based "hands-on" support of the sort I provide is just as important for government money doesn't resolve the heartache and despondency that people experience when they are trying to get ahead and can't, or quite simply just don't know what to do next to get back on track or move forward.

Of course, I cannot do it alone, but people like me, like you and every other person who's "done something with their lives" contributing of their "blood, sweat, tears and time" to help someone or several someones can.

People DO need food, shelter and clothing. The US has over 20,000 various charity organizations dedicated to providing food, shelter and clothing to the poor. The Salvation Army is located in every major city of America. Nowhere in the Constitution is our government authorized to do charity work. And I think there is a very good reason for this. It promotes dependency and that does not HELP anyone.

Now... You never got into any details about what you actually do to mentor but let's say that all you did was to show up once a week to give your person $100 cash and told them, go buy whatever you need.... do you think that sort of mentoring would have been effective?

You see, to effectively help someone out of poverty there has to be some level of motivation. Something has to inspire them to take action and do the things they need to do to improve their condition. If there is no expectation there is no motivation. Simply handing them $100 doesn't solve their problem it just makes them dependent.

Red:
Details: The short of what I do is help my mentees learn and exhibit the habits -- behavioral and metal -- of high-achieving people.

• Provide "life" guidance by explaining how life works, how things "fit together" as a whole, for example:
  • School --> college --> career development
  • Vision --> strategy --> tactics --> act --> evaluate progress --> adjust strategy, tactics or vision as needed --> revise plan --> keep going
• Help with homework and explain scholastic/academic concepts
• Teach study habits, skills and techniques
• Provide inspiration, motivation and help build their self-confidence
• Teach goal setting and goal and task prioritization skills
• Help them develop plans for achieving specific goals they set for themselves
  
• Teach or reinforce analytical skills
• Teach or reinforce problem solving skills
• Teach or reinforce objective thinking skills
• Assist with school applications
• Provide opportunities for discovering things they otherwise would not
• Introduce them to people who live the kinds of lives my mentees may want to live when they become adults
• Introduce them to people who have the kinds of careers my mentees may want to have when they become adults
• Provide limited financial support when it's critically necessary and there is no other viable alternative

Blue:
No, handing them money will not alone solve their problems, yet their being "handed" money by the public assistance programs that do that without question solves the problem of making sure their most basic of needs are met. You see, all the stuff I do would have little to no value if the kids aren't being housed, fed, clothed, shod, etc. One cannot rationally expect a kid to give a damn about laying the foundations for what their life will bring five years from now when today they have no food in their belly and they have no idea where they'll get food tomorrow. Public assistance isn't mean to solve every problem its recipients have; it's mean to solve the most basic ones so the recipients can act on their own (or with help such as that I give my mentees) to solve the rest of their problems.

Okay, what if I said, screw all that... let's just give them $100 and hope for the best? You see, that's what government entitlements do. There is no motivational factor. There is no inspiration. There is no instruction or teaching. It's simply saying... screw that, here's a check.. .good luck!

I have no problem with providing temporary help for people who find themselves indigent. I don't even have a problem with a portion of tax dollars being used for this. But anything we do should come with some level of expectation or require some degree of motivation. Otherwise, it is counterproductive to the goal of actually HELPING them.

Red:
I agree with you in that regard. Tossing money at indigents and hoping they "figure it out" is not alone, or at all for that matter, going to allow them to become self supporting achievers. That will achieve precisely what it does achieve: keep people from starving and dying in the streets. But as a wealthy nation, we have an obligation also to prevent our citizens from starving and dying in the streets; thus giving people monetary (or monetary equivalent) resources must happen.

The fact of the matter is that money solves the problems it solves, but it doesn't solve every problem. We as a people are very good at solving problems using money. Indeed, we prefer that solution approach, so much so that we at times delude ourselves into thinking that money can solve the totality of a problem. We do that because it takes far less involvement to write a check than it does to give of one's time, to do the types of things I do as a mentor.

Also, and we adopt tautological approach to solving our national problems; however, the solutions that work aren't binary in nature. The problems are not solved by money or mentoring (for example). They are not surmounted by money or motivation. It's money and motivation, money and mentoring that solves them.

Folks don't like subsidizing the cost of food, shelter and clothing for indigents. Do you have any idea of how much more it'd cost taxpayers to provide the mentoring (motivational and instructional) input of the sort I give my mentees were we to even attempt to pay for it out of our taxes? Trust me, it's wholly beyond our means to pay for -- we don't right now have the money to do that -- because the mentoring workforce would become the single largest "workforce" in the country. I mean really. Taking the ~45M people on public assistance and assigning a mentor to each of them such that no mentor has more than five mentees, we'd need 15M mentors, assuming each of them does the things I noted earlier. Do the math assuming one hour per day per mentee at just $10/hour....That is something we quite simply haven't the money to pay for even if money could buy it.

So, no, we cannot just throw money at the problem and think that'll be enough, but we also can't not throw money at the problem and think that the problem can be solved. Money is just one thing that's needed.

Notes:

1. I say five because mentoring five young people, including my own three kids, at one time is all I can manage and still do my job and enjoy my life, and at the same time not have to reduce the quantity/quality of mentoring input I deliver. I don't, for this context, see it as fair to ask of someone else more than I can do.
2. Three of my close friends mentor as I do. We jokingly call it "parenting lite," but that's about what it amounts to. We interact with each of our mentees almost daily, even though we each have very heavy travel schedules and often aren't in D.C., which is where our mentees live. We Skype/talk on the phone or whatever it takes to make sure they are getting the guidance they need everyday. We have to do that because we know their parents cannot, and in some cases their parents just won't give it to them, or won't in an effective or timely manner.

Edit/Correction:
Above I wrote, "we'd need 15M mentors." Apologies for the division error. The correct figure should be 9M mentors. That said, the correct figure doesn't make the sums needed any more available or affordable.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe in fairy tales or fantasy worlds.

Off Topic:
Hmmm...I'm a Christian, so I know that I do believe in at least one fantasy world.

I would argue, if you are a true Christian, you don't believe in a fantasy.

 

[Boss]

Edit/Correction:
Above I wrote, "we'd need 15M mentors." Apologies for the division error. The correct figure should be 9M mentors. That said, the correct figure doesn't make the sums needed any more available or affordable.

Let me say, I commend what you are doing and I think more people should do such things. I also mentor young people but it's not through some formal program, it's more 'taking them under my wing' to sort of give them guidance and advice. I have volunteered for youth programs of all kinds through the years.. the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, parks and recreation programs, Boy Scouts, etc. I've done loads of volunteer work for a local homeless shelter and for another local food pantry. For a few years, I helped a local church do a meals on wheels program. I am currently working with two non-profits who help feed and educate poor children in Nicaragua. So personally, although I am a devout Conservative, I have a servants heart. It's part of who I am and I don't do it for the recognition. And I am not a rare Conservative, I know many of them who volunteer right along side me.

One aspect that I've seen, that we've really not discussed, is how the various government programs and handouts affect the attitudes of some people who might otherwise contribute more. You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard the line: "Why should I contribute? They get enough of my tax dollars already!" Sadly enough, I think this sentiment is often used by the liberal social justice warriors more than anyone as an excuse for not contributing their time. They figure they are "doing their part" by protesting and lobbying for more government solutions. Right now, at this very moment, I have about a dozen or more liberal friends on Facebook who have shown support for the Native Americans protesting the oil pipeline in SD... NONE of them will even respond to my requests to support World Missions Outreach or Feed The 5000.

 

[320 Years of History]

it's not through some formal program, it's more 'taking them under my wing' to sort of give them guidance and advice.

That's exactly the nature of the mentoring I do. There's no program involved.

 

[320 Years of History]

I commend what you are doing and I think more people should do such things. I also mentor young people

TY and kudos to you as well. I wish more people would do the same.

 

[Syriusly]

One of me favorite shows: "Adam Ruins Everything" has an election special out now. I recommend that everyone watch it. He is fairly evenly critical of both candidates and parties.

If you don't wish to, here is the spoiler: according to the show, the most important problem in American Politics is polarization. No one on either side can talk to the other side.

I know that I am very polarized, that I will only rarely discuss issues with the left. I have my reasons and I have expressed them elsewhere. No real need for me to repeat it.

At the end of the show, Adam requested that we all try to find common ground with the other side that we can agree on and possibly make progress with.

I'm skeptical. Not just because it's hard to get the left to cooperate, but because you and I, the average citizen, can no longer effect change. I seriously doubt that even if everyone on this board all agreed that the debt was a major problem, for example, and even if we agreed on a plan of action, we could not get that solution in place.

That said, I'm willing to try an experiment. I already know a few issues that I agree with the left on. They are:

1. Evolution is the best explanation of how life came to be as it is on this planet.
2. The government should stay out of marriage completely. Anyone should be able to get married to anyone else as long as that person consents and is of the legal age of consent.

There are a few things that I think that I can come to terms with the left on:

1. That our debt is one of the most important issues we face.
2. That lying by our politicians should not be tolerated.
3. The influence of money in our politics is harmful.

It isn't much but it's a start. Anyone want to try to reach accross? See if it's possible.

There are things I can agree with, on the right. I think schools need to be brought back to more local levels as opposed to federal. I think the left has a tendancy to go overboard in their anti-Christian scrubbing of public places. I see no reason not to acknowledge that our country's main heritage is Judeo-Christian and enjoy Christmas pagents, songs, nativities etc as expressions of that heritage instead of insisting it be secularized or removed. Same with certain aspects of public prayer like before games.

I think both the right and left agree on the influence of money in politics being harmful - at least I agree with that.

Money in politics is a big one, and I agree that there needs to be reform. Many in the left complain about corporate money and we on the right counter with union money. Would you agree to getting rid of both?

Absolutely.

Citizen's United opened the door to both.

My feeling is that if you can't be sent to prison because you are not an actual person, then you shouldn't be able to contribute money to politics.

And yet you NEVER hear of liberals complaining about unions funneling money into Democrat coffers. Go figure!

I have done so- everytime I have discussed Citizen's United- I have pointed out that CU opened up the floodgates for both corporations and unions.

So once again you are wrong.