Dogs don't learn to sit by rewarding them when they don't. So many people hate my analogies comparing humans to dogs, but we're not that much different when it comes to behavioral training. If you want someone to work, reward them for working, if they don't cut them off and let them suffer until they work.
A reason people might hate your analogies is something you might understand about how fallacious they are.
Yes, there are similarities between dog training and human behavior.
But the analogy falls short. The issues for human productivity, and a dog sitting, are quite different. You actually make the other side's argument for them, unwittingly.
Your analogy would be fine, if it's saying 'people want a treat - a vacation, a new car, and so don't just give that to them, any more than a dog for not sitting'.
That's the liberal system.
What you are saying is, don't help the poor analogously to saying 'your dog gets no food or shelter or medical care if he won't sit. Leave him out in traffic, starving, and then if he sits he can have those things'. It's nonsensical how far you try to push the analogy when it comes to the poor.
Your view exposes a real lack of any what works as policies, and just regurgitates the simplistic view so many have on your side of what works that leads to a bad economy.
Let's try another analogy. Say we have an agrarian, uneducated population like the early US, and that we are talking about if people got educated, the economy would benefit.
The liberal says, 'let's have the government provide free universal education, to increase opportunity and help every American while improving the economy and growing the pie'.
Your side says, 'good goal, wrong plan. Since the people would benefit from getting education, that will create a market for it, and people will meet that need by providing all the education needed and profit from that, it's a win win, and we'll get universal education just from the market forces'.
Except that's not how it works at all. The economy was still agrarian, and the family needed the kids helping on the crops and nothing was going to happen for education.
The elite had theirs - private elite schools for the 'ruling' class to guarantee the same families mostly kept power - but that was enough.
Before the liberal plan, the right-wing idea didn't work; then the liberal plan was done, and despite all the criticisms of the system, it has had a lot of benefit.
As Frank Rich noted in his book 'The Wrecking Crew: When Conservatives Rule', they just don't get anything much about what makes society work.
What they CAN do is to offer simplistic nice-sounding fluff to people who fall for it and get their support for policies that actually, though it's unadvertised, help the rich.
And they have all kinds of excuses for the widespread harms their policies cause.
The problem with letting industries regulate themselves, that helps lead to too much freedom for BP to cut corners: somehow it was the government's fault. Plummeting wages as policies shift the balance of power to the employers: the workers are greedy and lazy demanding more. And so on.
