What's new

Trump's Address. Thoughts?

Germany isn't the best example to use atm. Social policies have put them in a bad spot and would better prove NPC's position than yours. The middle class is getting hollowed out and they have ran out of places to tax the problems away.

I don't know why the right prefers to use terms in championing and demonizing ways when what they really mean is simple enough to say: it's not a good idea to encourage the masses to unnecessarily become wards of the state. I think that's something most reasonable people can agree to. Simple. I say it's not a good idea to make everyone a ward of the state, but we all deserve to benefit from advancements that society creates. That's the purpose of joining a society, is it not? Balancing widespread benefit while not creating moral hazard will always be a challenge. The championing and demonizing use of abstract terms is dumbed down blah, blah blah.

Your description of the middle class sounds a lot like what people say about the US, as well. If the hollowing out is happening in both a socialized and a corporatized economic structure, perhaps it's not related to either?

Status-seeking is an integral part of most humans personality and most cultures. Being a "ward of the state" is an inherently low-status life, so I don't see how making it a life where you have access to all basic needs is going to encourage many many people to live it; that is why I don't take the "moral hazard" argument seriously.
 
Germany isn't the best example to use atm. Social policies have put them in a bad spot and would better prove NPC's position than yours. The middle class is getting hollowed out and they have ran out of places to tax the problems away.

I don't know why the right prefers to use terms in championing and demonizing ways when what they really mean is simple enough to say: it's not a good idea to encourage the masses to unnecessarily become wards of the state. I think that's something most reasonable people can agree to. Simple. I say it's not a good idea to make everyone a ward of the state, but we all deserve to benefit from advancements that society creates. That's the purpose of joining a society, is it not? Balancing widespread benefit while not creating moral hazard will always be a challenge. The championing and demonizing use of abstract terms is dumbed down blah, blah blah.

Really good post
 
Status-seeking is an integral part of most humans personality and most cultures.

I don't think that's true. People tend prize security and comfort much more. Otherwise risk takers wouldn't be the minority. Status is a good way to obtain security and comfort though.

Being a "ward of the state" is an inherently low-status life, so I don't see how making it a life where you have access to all basic needs is going to encourage many many people to live it; that is why I don't take the "moral hazard" argument seriously.

Wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "...many people to live it in the current structure"? No doubt there is a point where enough is provided that many people wouldn't be incentivized to do anything. I know I wouldn't be. Isn't that essentially what the retirement dream is? Have enough security that you can do whatever the hell you want, when you want?
 
I don't think that's true. People tend prize security and comfort much more. Otherwise risk takers wouldn't be the minority. Status is a good way to obtain security and comfort though.

Don't confuse the means and the ends. Risk-taking does not guarantee status, and many people don't see risk-taking as a method to get status. Risk-taking is partly a matter of security. People take more risks if they perceive less danger from doing so.

Wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "...many people to live it in the current structure"? No doubt there is a point where enough is provided that many people wouldn't be incentivized to do anything. I know I wouldn't be.

I strongly doubt it. You can get basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) for four people met on two minimum-wage incomes in the US. However, people want more. Better places to live, better schools, better entertainment, etc. Most of that is tied up wanting to be better than their neighbors, or other neighborhoods. etc.

Does this apply to every person? No. However, how many people do you know that like their job so much that they want to do it for about the same level of pay, with the same job title, for the next 20 years?

Isn't that essentially what the retirement dream is? Have enough security that you can do whatever the hell you want, when you want?

Yet, so much of what so many retirees want is the best lawn in the neighborhood, the best vacations, etc.
 
Don't confuse the means and the ends. Risk-taking does not guarantee status, and many people don't see risk-taking as a method to get status. Risk-taking is partly a matter of security. People take more risks if they perceive less danger from doing so.



I strongly doubt it. You can get basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) for four people met on two minimum-wage incomes in the US. However, people want more. Better places to live, better schools, better entertainment, etc. Most of that is tied up wanting to be better than their neighbors, or other neighborhoods. etc.

Does this apply to every person? No. However, how many people do you know that like their job so much that they want to do it for about the same level of pay, with the same job title, for the next 20 years?



Yet, so much of what so many retirees want is the best lawn in the neighborhood, the best vacations, etc.

You see the human experience much differently than I do.


Does this apply to every person? No. However, how many people do you know that like their job so much that they want to do it for about the same level of pay, with the same job title, for the next 20 years?

I don't like any job.

I've had the same job, same pay, same title for 12 years. I'm fine with that. Most of the people I work with are in the same boat but with 20-30 years in. It was the same story in my previous job. Almost all my counterparts outside my employer have a similar story, although I don't know exact details of pay but it's easy enough to make ballpark assumptions.

It's not ideal by any means but we all have stuck with it for the same reasons, and stature isn't one of them.
 
Undocumented people can't get government assistance.

Undocumented people who work under a false social security number PAY TAXES but cannot file a tax return, so they cannot get a refund and will never collect social security based on those earnings.

I'm gonna tell you a different story. I'm going to tell you a story of a U.S. sailor who was able to go all over the world and speak English and was welcomed and accommodated. In Kuala Lumpur, in Dubai, in Bahrain, Singapore, Hong Kong. In Dubai I went to a large store and I bought a full ounce of saffron, along with some deodorant, shampoo, etc.. When I went to pay I was asked if I wanted to pay in Dirham (the national currency) or another currency. I had Dirham, but I also had U.S. dollars and was expecting to have to exchange them for Dirham at some point, but the cashier, speaking to me in English, was happy to accomodate me and hit the "USD" button on the register and was able to accept my U.S. Currency for payment.

I was stationed in San Diego, right there on the border with Mexico. Do you think there was a store that could hit a button and accept pesos? If there was I never saw it. And while the Hispanic population was large and Spanish was common, I bet I had an easier time galavanting all over the world expecting to be accommodated in English than a spanish-speaking person had in San Diego.

I've worked in places with a lot of Spanish speakers in Utah. I was nice to them and asked them to teach me a few words. They were nice to me and taught me a few words. And we worked side-by-side and got along great.

In my division (CS7) aboard the USS nimitz I worked with one woman who entered the U.S. with her parents illegally when she was elementary school age. I worked with an adult who was from Taiwan who was in the U.S. Navy as a path to citizenship. When I was assigned temporary duty to shipboard security for six months I worked with a black man who one day at lunch "admitted" to me that he was muslim and he asked me not to tell people. I worked with people from the Philippines (many, actually, there are a **** ton of Filipinos in the U.S. Navy. I'm not sure we'd have a Navy without them), several hispanics, many black people, even some weird *** Floridians (another group that is over-represented in the Navy).

I love and care about the people I worked with directly in the Navy. They served this nation. They were willing to die for you. For you.

I came out of the Navy learning one thing above all other things. It is the one thing that makes me happy to have served. I learned that this planet is filled with human beings and we all basically want the same things. We are all one people and the borders between us are artificial. That's the biggest thing I took away from my 6 years in the Navy, and I'm thankful I had the chance in my life to see that. I saw that not only with the people I served with, but I saw it when I talked to cabbies, when I talked to bartenders, cashiers, street vendors, hotel clerks, tour guides, restaurant workers.

One more story. One of the times my ship was docked at Jebel Ali (outside Dubai) and I was assigned to shipboard security, I had to stand watch in what was called "the sandbox" (full disclosure, there are a few dockside areas cordoned off for sailors with that name, but I think this is the primary one). As I was walking my post I ran into one of the local guys near a utility gate (for the trucks that hauled away our feces while we were docked). He was from India. He was a veteran of the Indian military. And little side note, Indians are EVERYWHERE in the Middle East and Asia, they are most of the cab drivers from Hong Kong to Singapore to Dubai. Anyway, this guy told us that he loved Dubai. He loved his job there as a security guard. Said when he was in the Indian Military they went through a round of forced retirements and then later refused to pay retirement benefits, so he left. Found himself in Dubai. Said his life and his pay was good and he liked the city. He talked about the opportunities there. It wasn't the only time I'd heard it. One of my cabbies, who was not a "citizen" of the UAE but who was born there and grew up there talked about his admiration for the Emirate that represented Dubai and how he had a vision and plan to make the place profitable once the oil ran out. He was so proud. It was in those encounters that my impression that the U.S. was this unique place that everyone wanted to be was shattered. It made me realize that we actually needed to be our best if we wanted to demand that sort of pride and admiration. If we wanted to be the destination that people would not only come to for economic opportunity, but that they would also fall in love with and feel pride in being part of.

So tell your wife to buy babbel for Spanish and to learn a second language, just like the cabbies and cashiers and street food vendors all around the world did so that they could accommodate me and everyone else from the U.S., all our service members who are welcomed and treated well all over the world.


I'm a little late, but this is a great post and I think more people should read it. As an american who had the opportunity and blessing of living abroad for a extended spell, I can tell you that it changes your attitude and thinking. Exiting an ethnocentric perspective is essential for productive modern discourse in my opinion. Too many lack the perspective necessary for it.
 
I'm a little late, but this is a great post and I think more people should read it. As an american who had the opportunity and blessing of living abroad for a extended spell, I can tell you that it changes your attitude and thinking. Exiting an ethnocentric perspective is essential for productive modern discourse in my opinion. Too many lack the perspective necessary for it.

I think America has done a intentionally pathetic job in the culture and language learning department.

Cuz Merica!!
 
I think America has done a intentionally pathetic job in the culture and language learning department.

Cuz Merica!!

The immediate benefit to becoming fluent or near fluent in a second language (speaking that language with others who can speak it) is great. The adjacent benefits are amazing. I believe the process of learning a language allows for deeper cultural understanding, changes paradigms and even creates pathways in the brain for new, better, and more efficient ways of thinking. These benefits aren't guaranteed, clearly, but the second language definitely opens doors that weren't there before.

Also, regarding the post that Bulletproof responded to, I hate the notion or attitude prevalent in the United States that ?"they" should "learn" english. "They" know more english than the vast majority of us have learned any other language. The US doesn't have a national language.
 
Last edited:
The immediate benefit to becoming fluent or near fluent in a second language (speaking that language with others who can speak it) is great. The adjacent benefits are amazing. I believe the process of learning a language allows for deeper cultural understanding, changes paradigms and even creates pathways in the brain for new, better, and more efficient ways of thinking. These benefits aren't guaranteed, clearly, but the second language definitely opens doors that weren't there before.

Agreed. One of the educational changes I’d like to see is kids taught a second culture from kindergarten through 12th.

Some obvious choices are Spanish, Chinese, French and Arabic. Parents simply choose what they want their kid in and bam. A nation of adults that are all at least bilingual within one generation.

Not to mention all the side effects I think would happen. Like combating racism and religious bigotry.
 
Remember how back up in this thread, I talked about Trump vs Obama in terms of campaign promises kept? And I said it wasn't fair to compare them, totally, because we had 8 years of data on Obama and only 2 on Trump?

Politifact has now compared the first 2 years.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ring-trump-obama-campaign-promises-two-years/
I think it's great that they put those numbers together, and I think it does help put numbers to the concept.

However... sticking with promises is not a one promise made equals any other promise made. They used Obama's policy papers (he did that sort of thing because he was actually serious about governing) where I'd assume many of his "promises" were minor policy issues that were either non-controversial or completely under his control.

Trump made far fewer promises, and they weren't written in policy papers (the guy doesn't like to read, no way you're going to get him to put in any work on policy papers) they were grand, yet vague proclamations made to ravenous cheering crowds of worshipers. Much of what Trump promised was essentially what a couple trailer park drunks spout off "You know what I'd do if I was President? I'd build a massive wall to stop all them Mexicans from comin' over here and stealin' our jobs! BUURP." Much of his promises were just nonsense or fantasy, but I believe that he had every intention of keeping pretty much all of them. I don't think he had a solid working idea how the federal government works, so he couldn't even comprehend how to get any of these ideas off the ground and the "adults in the room" had to explain to little Donny that the Presidency doesn't work the way he thought it did.

But your typical politician tells us dumb voters things we want to hear that they have zero passion for or personal interest in pursuing, and that they know when they say it that it's never going to happen. Trump, on the other hand, said things his followers wanted to hear, but I think in the majority of cases also wants those things and he expected to make it happen.

So you can't just say, Trump was successful on x percentage of promises and Obama was on y percentage and y>x so Obama was more dedicated to the promises he made. Obama was qualified to be the President, so it goes without saying he'd be more effective at doing the job.
 
Back
Top