Is California becoming a National Security Risk to the U.S.?

[Janet Alderton + 124]

On 11/23/2018 at 5:05 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Janet,

My comment was more me trying to make a joke... If you read several of my posts you will see a recurring theme is that I do not think much of the politicians that claim to have best interest of the poor blue collar middle class, but enact policies that do not benefit these.... 

I agree with you.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Ron, 

You really need to get better sources of information. Do as @mthebold would... talk to people in the ground. Travel to the UK and you will see that whilst GDP has grown large parts of the population live in poverty. Real poverty. Latest estimate I saw was that something 20% of the bristish population live in poverty. 

As to the populace getting more pro Brexit that is just complete and utter nonsense. I live in Europe. I do business in UK, so I travel there a lot. I have several Bristish friends. Wage earners and SMEs Owners. 

You seem to be way off. Here is the latest Guardian poll. I have been told they are leftist and not to trust them. It is very close as you can easily see. The main difference is in 18 to 24 year olds who may not even vote in a possible second Brexit. May is unpopular, Merkel is unpopular, Macron is unpopular. France has the most Muslim problems and just had a huge rally against increased fuel taxes. I think the E.U. will weaken over time. Best wishes to you regardless of opinion differences. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

10 hours ago, mthebold said:

I don't think that's an accurate view of Trump's policy.  When you look at the policies of building the wall & imposing tariffs, each is a response to unfair/irresponsible behavior by other countries.  In the case of tariffs, each is a retaliation against specific foreign policies.  In the case of the wall, it's a response to foreign nations using the US as a release valve for social unrest. 

Half of the US population bears the full brunt of foreign dickery.  The other half benefits from the "globalist" policies that allow these practices to continue.  It's not "nationalist" to oppose unfair treatment; it's common sense & basic self-preservation.  

Oh, I'm not saying it's nationalist, in the European sense, at all.  I simply believe President Trump is doing the hard things that so many administrations before him could or would not do.  You are right that the wall and tariffs are in response to other country's unfair practices, but they have been playing these games my whole adult life and I have never understood my government's stance before.  I have spoken in the past directly to Senators (they were visiting AmCham while in China) and they made good sense with their sales pitches, but in the end they were sales pitches that didn't do enough to meet what I felt/feel are the realities.

I like what Trump is doing and think it is long overdue, especially given the tumultuous times we are in and my belief that they are going to get much, much worse.  In that, I think his actions align perfectly well with what the writer(s) over at https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/ describe, and that's just fine with me.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

13 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You seem to be way off. Here is the latest Guardian poll. I have been told they are leftist and not to trust them. It is very close as you can easily see. The main difference is in 18 to 24 year olds who may not even vote in a possible second Brexit. May is unpopular, Merkel is unpopular, Macron is unpopular. France has the most Muslim problems and just had a huge rally against increased fuel taxes. I think the E.U. will weaken over time. Best wishes to you regardless of opinion differences. 

It is a little more complicated than that. Trumps approval ratings aren't great either.  However, that does not mean he will not get re-elected. 

[jaycee + 348]

18 hours ago, mthebold said:

That people are falling into poverty is relevant, but Ron asked the right question: who, exactly, is falling into poverty and why, exactly, is that happening?  Ron's point about refugees could be anecdotal or it could be representative of the larger truth; a detailed study can answer that question.  

The first question you should ask is the definition of poverty that is being used there are many. The Left use one the Right use the other, the Guardian is a standing joke in how far to the Left its views are as the Daily Mail is on the Right. I believe the 20% figure is a left wing definition by the Joseph Rowantree Association as I live in the UK and believe me there is not 20% in poverty far from it there would be massive riots if there were. There are stories of people going to food banks in cars smoking cigarettes and cigarettes are nearly £9 a pack so you have to wonder what poverty is. Not having a car and affording to smoke? Lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Edited November 25, 2018 by jaycee

[DA? + 301]

25 minutes ago, jaycee said:

The first question you should ask is the definition of poverty that is being used there are many. The Left use one the Right use the other, the Guardian is a standing joke in how far to the Left its views are as the Daily Mail is on the Right. I believe the 20% figure is a left wing definition by the Joseph Rowantree Association as I live in the UK and believe me there is not 20% in poverty far from it there would be massive riots if there were. There are stories of people going to food banks in cars smoking cigarettes and cigarettes are nearly £9 a pack so you have to wonder what poverty is. Not having a car and affording to smoke? Lies, dammed lies and statistics.

I don't know the statistics for poor in the UK but having a wife that has been a teacher in the UK there is plenty of poverty. Kids that the parents can't afford the school uniform, family's not being able to feed their kids probably and so on. It's amazing how we let so many children live in poverty and just put the blame on the parents. Society lets them down, we are all to blame. 

[jaycee + 348]

1 hour ago, DA? said:

I don't know the statistics for poor in the UK but having a wife that has been a teacher in the UK there is plenty of poverty. Kids that the parents can't afford the school uniform, family's not being able to feed their kids probably and so on. It's amazing how we let so many children live in poverty and just put the blame on the parents. Society lets them down, we are all to blame. 

But you or your wife are not in the UK and as per the report from JRF they state over the last 20 years poverty has dramatically reduced in the UK therefore unless you and your wife left very recently she would not have noticed the alleged dramatic change.

[Rodent + 1,424]

1 hour ago, DA? said:

. Kids that the parents can't afford the school uniform, family's not being able to feed their kids probably and so on. It's amazing how we let so many children live in poverty and just put the blame on the parents. Society lets them down, we are all to blame. 

UK has plenty of social programs, including, I believe, a school uniform assistance program. I don't live in the UK, but to me as an outsider, it doesn't look like society is letting them down. It looks like they are propping them up.

[DA? + 301]

45 minutes ago, jaycee said:

wife left very recently she would not have noticed the alleged dramatic change.

A few years back but I do get back and things aren't any better.

 

41 minutes ago, Rodent said:

UK has plenty of social programs, including, I believe, a school uniform assistance program. I don't live in the UK, but to me as an outsider, it doesn't look like society is letting them down. It looks like they are propping them up.

Err uniform assistance used to be out of the teachers pockets, many teachers would help these kids in all sorts of ways. Social services (my mother worked in child support) is horrendous, they are so under staffed that only seriously endangered children receive help and the staff on average only last about three years due to stress. If any decent human thinks that these kids have sufficient social services then they are deceiving themselves or are being deceived. We should be judged on how as a society we care for the children.  

[jaycee + 348]

1 minute ago, DA? said:

A few years back but I do get back and things aren't any better.

Then we agree! The JRF report said it only started recently therefore it was improving dramatically in your time here.

 

2 minutes ago, DA? said:

If any decent human thinks that these kids have sufficient social services then they are deceiving themselves or are being deceived. We should be judged on how as a society we care for the children.  

I have a friend who fosters children the children he gets normally play the system and regularly pretend they are badly treated by the foster parents if they want to move to someone who they think will give them more treats like ipads etc. A relative of mine confirmed this when he stopped fostering children as the last pair claimed he threw them down the stairs.. He was proven innocent eventually but had to suffer a lot of stress before that happened, he no longer takes children to foster. Social workers are worse than useless as they always side with the children or clients and never look at reality, many of the children my friend takes have history of lying yet are always believed thus encouraging them to lie more which wastes more social workers time investigating. Children and people are incentivised to exaggerate everything as the system will give them more if they do.

Reality is somewhat different from my observations to yours. If social services were managed correctly there would be enough resources sadly its run by rosey eyed liberals who are hopelessly equipped to deal with reality.

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, jaycee said:

Then we agree! The JRF report said it only started recently therefore it was improving dramatically in your time here.

 

I have a friend who fosters children the children he gets normally play the system and regularly pretend they are badly treated by the foster parents if they want to move to someone who they think will give them more treats like ipads etc. A relative of mine confirmed this when he stopped fostering children as the last pair claimed he threw them down the stairs.. He was proven innocent eventually but had to suffer a lot of stress before that happened, he no longer takes children to foster. Social workers are worse than useless as they always side with the children or clients and never look at reality, many of the children my friend takes have history of lying yet are always believed thus encouraging them to lie more which wastes more social workers time investigating. Children and people are incentivised to exaggerate everything as the system will give them more if they do.

Reality is somewhat different from my observations to yours. If social services were managed correctly there would be enough resources sadly its run by rosey eyed liberals who are hopelessly equipped to deal with reality.

Obviously we live in totally different realities. Maybe you should spend some time in these poorer communities and maybe even social workers.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

It is a little more complicated than that. Trumps approval ratings aren't great either.  However, that does not mean he will not get re-elected. 

Macron is a whole different case IMHO. See https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-23/emmanuel-macrons-popularity-plunges-29-migrant-crisis-worsens

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1792403/paris-riot-french-cops-set-on-fire-by-protestors-hurling-molotov-cocktails-as-violent-riots-erupt-in-the-capital/

[ronwagn + 6,290]

14 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oh, I'm not saying it's nationalist, in the European sense, at all.  I simply believe President Trump is doing the hard things that so many administrations before him could or would not do.  You are right that the wall and tariffs are in response to other country's unfair practices, but they have been playing these games my whole adult life and I have never understood my government's stance before.  I have spoken in the past directly to Senators (they were visiting AmCham while in China) and they made good sense with their sales pitches, but in the end they were sales pitches that didn't do enough to meet what I felt/feel are the realities.

I like what Trump is doing and think it is long overdue, especially given the tumultuous times we are in and my belief that they are going to get much, much worse.  In that, I think his actions align perfectly well with what the writer(s) over at https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/ describe, and that's just fine with me.

Thank God for people who understand world problems and are not afraid to speak the truth to the misinformed majority. 

[TXPower + 643]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

 

To add perspective, an anecdote from my childhood:

I had two friends from school who were considered "poor".  Maybe not as poor as what you're describing, but poor.  One's family received a free home from the charitable organization "habitat for humanity".  Simultaneously, he owned the latest video game systems.  With the other, teachers tolerated his bullying of other students because he came from a less fortunate home.  He regularly showed up to class wearing the most expensive basketball shoes.  

Meanwhile, I owned nothing expensive.  I wore the cheapest, used clothing, reused my school supplies each year (27 years later as a degreed professional, I still have the same pencil bag...), and spent my Saturday mornings working on the farm instead of watching cartoons.  My family gardened, heated our home with firewood, made extensive use of thrift stores, never ate out at nice restaurants (I didn't know steak was supposed to be pink until I was a senior in high school), regularly visited the library, etc.  I later realized that, of all the people I went to school with, my family was probably the most financially stable.  This wasn't due to greater opportunity; it was pure discipline and hard work.  Ironically, my siblings and I were often ridiculed & ostracized by our peers for dressing poorly.  

This has been my consistent experience with "poor" people: they're not even trying.  Alcohol, cigarettes, energy drinks, fast food, expensive crap they don't need, fast cars, electronics - you name it, they bought it.  They didn't even ask what careers were available, much less do the work to obtain them.  In "poor" social circles, attempts to study, save, or otherwise be disciplined were ruthlessly scorned.  More than anything else, poverty results from people's bad behavior, and their behavior results from the crappy cultures they adopt.  

^All of the above amounts to personal accountability, which is lost on the majority of people these days.  Too many people these days have guzzled the kool-aid which deludes them into believing equality of opportunity isn’t enough, they want equality of outcome.  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, TXPower said:

 equality of opportunity isn’t enough, they want equality of outcome.  

There is no equal opportunity - you can get ahead with self-discipline and hard work but that is far different from equal opportunity.  Your parents net worth has far more influence than IQ, education level, etc.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Enthalpic

[TXPower + 643]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

There is no equal opportunity - you can get ahead with self-discipline and hard work but that is far different from equal opportunity.  Your parents net worth has far more influence than IQ, education level, etc.

Too many others in this great nations history have come from parentage with nothing more to offer than the transference of a strong work ethic and a sense of personal responsibility for the choices and outcomes of their lives.  Working hard and taking advantage of what this country offers is equality of opportunity.  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, TXPower said:

Too many others in this great nations history have come from parentage with nothing more to offer than the transference of a strong work ethic and a sense of personal responsibility for the choices and outcomes of their lives.  Working hard and taking advantage of what this country offers is equality of opportunity.  

Look up the data.  Read Freakonomics.

A long time ago you could get free land by homesteading.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 hours ago, TXPower said:

Too many others in this great nations history have come from parentage with nothing more to offer than the transference of a strong work ethic and a sense of personal responsibility for the choices and outcomes of their lives.  Working hard and taking advantage of what this country offers is equality of opportunity.  

That only works with an expanding frontier, no imputed rents, and effectively free land and zero taxation (other than whiskey, of course).  In today's highly complex administrative State, all the advantages go to the well-connected and the well-educated, and the poor with the work ethic get pushed aside. 

There is a country boy down the road from me, age 76; last winter I found his feet sticking out from underneath his ancient pick-up truck.  "Hey, Dave, what's up?"   "Clutch is out."   So there you have this old guy trying to replace a truck clutch while lying on his back in a snowbank in the totally freezing cold.  It would cost $650 to take to a shop to fix and he doesn't have the 650.  So his old truck, which is his livelihood  (he gets about $680/month from social security, and you don't get far in Vermont winters with that) is out of commission and his income stream takes a big hit until he gets that truck fixed.  It took him a month.  It was a 4x4, and to do the job you have to drop the driveshafts, uncouple the transfer case, move that back, then uncouple the transmission, move that out, then uncouple the bell housing, move that out, and then you gain access to the clutch assembly.  Meanwhile all the bolts in there are rusted solid into position with all the road salt the State dumps every winter.  And he is 76.

You can argue that this reinforces your doctrine of "get out there and work," but remember, the (even slightly)  richer fellow would take it to the shop, had a new clutch tossed in there in two days, and be out with his truck back at work.  Here the old guy has to spend the month trying to fix his old heap.  So he always loses out.  And that is the reality of being poor.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

14 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

 the (even slightly)  richer fellow would take it to the shop, had a new clutch tossed in there in two days, and be out with his truck back at work.  Here the old guy has to spend the month trying to fix his old heap.  So he always loses out.  And that is the reality of being poor.

... and the rich kid would have a nice truck from dad that didn't break down at all.

[jaycee + 348]

13 hours ago, DA? said:

Obviously we live in totally different realities. Maybe you should spend some time in these poorer communities and maybe even social workers.

I am not sure where you got your reality from however come with me next time you come to the UK to where I grew up I will show you reality. I came from a poor background in a deprived area and even then I had other issues to deal with on top compared to other kids, I am not going to give out my past here however. My family were immigrants so worked their way out of poverty so I had less than state supported kids. Out of my school of 240 kids in my first year at high school 4 of us made it to University, the desire to go from the rest was zero they wanted to get on the dole as soon as possible or if you were female get pregnant and get a house from the council. I grew up and recognised how poverty really works for many its a choice to milk the very generous UK system and is encouraged by the Labour party to have a financially dependant voting base. Similar to many Left wing states and states of mind.

[jaycee + 348]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

There is no equal opportunity - you can get ahead with self-discipline and hard work but that is far different from equal opportunity.  Your parents net worth has far more influence than IQ, education level, etc.

So if its unfair rich kids get all the breaks? Why do we work to help our kids surely we all should not be allowed to hand over any money to our offspring if that's the case? That goes totally against nature of course. If someone has rich parents its only fair they should use the money to help their kids as someone clearly in their family was successful before and is passing on the fruits of that labour. I have seen many rich kids having all the benefits and fail mind you. If you are successful you will rise, maybe not as high as you want but you pass the baton onto the next generation who start from a higher point and they go onwards and upwards and promote the family genes as in the end that is what nature tells us to do. I cannot understand people whining its so unfair. Take away the advantages you gain in your life to pass onto your kids and all of a sudden you have a communist state that will collapse when the money runs out as nobody is incentivised to work. Venezuela is the latest example of such a situation. Those at the top of such communist structures never live the life the workers have off course and actively promote their offspring in the system, nature at work again.
There should be a base support for everyone of course but here in the UK it is not managed in a sensible way, it has created a sub culture of people who would rather than working live on benefits and when you define poverty as those that live on a given percentage below the average income rather than have they enough to live on you are always going to have poverty as there is always a percentage below average! The original idea was to provide for workers whilst they find a new job, or those that could no longer work, but left wing governments have make it far too generous.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, jaycee said:

So if its unfair rich kids get all the breaks? Why do we work to help our kids surely we all should not be allowed to hand over any money to our offspring if that's the case? That goes totally against nature of course. If someone has rich parents its only fair they should use the money to help their kids as someone clearly in their family was successful before and is passing on the fruits of that labour. I have seen many rich kids having all the benefits and fail mind you. If you are successful you will rise, maybe not as high as you want but you pass the baton onto the next generation who start from a higher point and they go onwards and upwards and promote the family genes as in the end that is what nature tells us to do. I cannot understand people whining its so unfair. Take away the advantages you gain in your life to pass onto your kids and all of a sudden you have a communist state that will collapse when the money runs out as nobody is incentivised to work. Venezuela is the latest example of such a situation. Those at the top of such communist structures never live the life the workers have off course and actively promote their offspring in the system, nature at work again.
There should be a base support for everyone of course but here in the UK it is not managed in a sensible way, it has created a sub culture of people who would rather than working live on benefits and when you define poverty as those that live on a given percentage below the average income rather than have they enough to live on you are always going to have poverty as there is always a percentage below average! The original idea was to provide for workers whilst they find a new job, or those that could no longer work, but left wing governments have make it far too generous.

JC, 

I agree with you for a large part. It is a very difficult discussion on how and how much to help. As long as we can that nobody should starve and everybody should have an opportunity to advance in society then we can discuss how to help and how much to help. But of course that doesn't have anything to do with CA being a national security risk to the US of A. 

[DA? + 301]

3 hours ago, jaycee said:

I am not sure where you got your reality from however come with me next time you come to the UK to where I grew up I will show you reality. I came from a poor background in a deprived area and even then I had other issues to deal with on top compared to other kids, I am not going to give out my past here however. My family were immigrants so worked their way out of poverty so I had less than state supported kids. Out of my school of 240 kids in my first year at high school 4 of us made it to University, the desire to go from the rest was zero they wanted to get on the dole as soon as possible or if you were female get pregnant and get a house from the council. I grew up and recognised how poverty really works for many its a choice to milk the very generous UK system and is encouraged by the Labour party to have a financially dependant voting base. Similar to many Left wing states and states of mind.

And that argument just shows why having decent social services and looking after the children is such a good investment. Break the cycle. I grew up in a poor community as well, we had nothing to look forward to, we knew no different, all we had to look forward to was living like our parents. So we spent our time drinking taking drugs, racing cars and bikes, if we fucked and died well that often seemed the best outcome. It seems really weird looking at people that identify as right wing being against helping these kids, it's the best dam investment that can be made. Turn these kids into useful members of the community, that are well educated and trained for employment. How much will be recouped from that investment if an adult works and stays out of prison? Makes the outlay look triflingly small.

Anyone that thinks it's fine to let a child live in suffering, to deprive them of the chance of a decent future is for the want of a better work evil and worse than scum.  

[jaycee + 348]

59 minutes ago, DA? said:

Turn these kids into useful members of the community, that are well educated and trained for employment. How much will be recouped from that investment if an adult works and stays out of prison? Makes the outlay look triflingly small.

Anyone that thinks it's fine to let a child live in suffering, to deprive them of the chance of a decent future is for the want of a better work evil and worse than scum.  

Totally agree. stop pouring more money into a failed system making it worse by creating more dependancy. The solution relies on making those on benefits want to get of it and provide jobs for them to do so. Cutting migration, another right wing idea, actually helps in this respect too by keeping manual and low skilled jobs open for UK residents to allow them to work whereas the left wing view of helping the whole world to come to the UK does not.

[DA? + 301]

22 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Cutting migration, another right wing idea, actually helps in this respect too by keeping manual and low skilled jobs open for UK residents to allow them to work whereas the left wing view of helping the whole world to come to the UK does not.

As a migrant myself, I love freedom of travel. Also coming from farming stock, the UK relies on immigrants to do the low wage shit jobs that you really can't have a decent life on, without them ag is going to suffer.