美国政治的根本问题是什么（二）
正文翻译
What is the root problem in US politics?
美国政治的根本问题是什么?
美国政治的根本问题是什么?
评论翻译
Pascal Morimacil
The goal of US politics is to make people cry, ideally at least half the country.
When that happens, it’s celebrated!
Sure, maybe all you got was a nice big mug of neoliberal capitalism.
But close your eyes, pinch your nose, and drink up while it’s still warm!
Think about all those communists/white supremacists, and how they are all forced to drink the same shit as you!
Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
There is a first past the post voting system, that inevitably devolves into 2 big parties.
Voting third party has no real impact.
The 2 big parties don’t actually stand for anything, their goal is just to win.
They know that they can’t really win by having a coherent position.
美国政治的目标是让人们哭泣，理想情况下至少让一半的美国人哭泣。
当这种情况发生时，人们会庆祝！
当然，也许你得到的只是一个新自由主义资本主义的大杯子。
但是闭上你的眼睛，捏住你的鼻子，在它还热的时候喝掉它!
想想那些共产主义者/白人至上主义者，他们是如何被迫和你一样喝这些无用之物的!
这难道不会让你内心感到温暖和舒适吗?
“先过终点制”的投票制度，不可避免地会演变成两个大党。
投票给第三党没有实际影响。
这两个大党实际上并不代表任何东西，他们的目标只是赢得选举。
他们知道，如果立场一致，他们就无法真正获胜。
The goal of US politics is to make people cry, ideally at least half the country.
When that happens, it’s celebrated!
Sure, maybe all you got was a nice big mug of neoliberal capitalism.
But close your eyes, pinch your nose, and drink up while it’s still warm!
Think about all those communists/white supremacists, and how they are all forced to drink the same shit as you!
Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
There is a first past the post voting system, that inevitably devolves into 2 big parties.
Voting third party has no real impact.
The 2 big parties don’t actually stand for anything, their goal is just to win.
They know that they can’t really win by having a coherent position.
美国政治的目标是让人们哭泣，理想情况下至少让一半的美国人哭泣。
当这种情况发生时，人们会庆祝！
当然，也许你得到的只是一个新自由主义资本主义的大杯子。
但是闭上你的眼睛，捏住你的鼻子，在它还热的时候喝掉它!
想想那些共产主义者/白人至上主义者，他们是如何被迫和你一样喝这些无用之物的!
这难道不会让你内心感到温暖和舒适吗?
“先过终点制”的投票制度，不可避免地会演变成两个大党。
投票给第三党没有实际影响。
这两个大党实际上并不代表任何东西，他们的目标只是赢得选举。
他们知道，如果立场一致，他们就无法真正获胜。
They need to try and rally half the country behind them, and having a coherent position would be a disadvantage.
Instead, they try to remain as vague as possible concerning their own positions with empty slogans like “Change”, “MAGA”, or “build back better”, letting people project whatever they want in there.
Actually having a campaign platform is fully optional.
What is not optional, however, is fearmongering and ad hominem attacks.
You cannot really get people to rally around something.
It would be dangerous to the status quo.
But you can get people to rally against something. Or someone.
Presidents split their time between doing things by executive order and undoing the previous president’s executive orders, senators consider filibustering their main job, and everyone is on board with things like packing the courts or gerrymandering
Tax cuts and bailout for the big corporations are the only thing that both parties agree on, so that kind of thing gets passed while barely getting mentioned in the media, before it’s back to slinging shit at each other.
Corruption continues, lobbying continues, shitty media continues.
50% of the country is even less happy about this than you are.
So call them names and dance on their graves! The status quo won again!
他们需要争取全国一半的人支持他们，而立场一致将是一个劣势。
相反，他们试图用“改变”、“让美国再次伟大”或“重建得更好”等空洞的口号，尽可能模糊地表达自己的立场，让人们想投射什么就投射什么。
实际上，是否有竞选平台完全是可选的。
然而，不可选择的是散布恐惧和人身攻击。
你不可能真正让人们团结在一起。
这对现状是危险的。
但你可以让人们团结起来反对某些事情或者反对某人。
总统们在执行行政命令和撤销前任总统的行政命令之间分配时间，参议员们考虑阻挠他们的主要工作，每个人都在做一些事情，比如塞满法庭或不公正地划分选区。
减税和救助大公司是两党唯一达成一致的事情，所以这种事情在媒体上几乎没有被提及的情况下就被通过了，然后又开始互相指责。
腐败还在继续，游说还在继续，垃圾媒体还在继续。
全国50%的人对此甚至比你更不高兴。
那就骂他们，在他们的坟墓上跳舞吧!现状又赢了!
Instead, they try to remain as vague as possible concerning their own positions with empty slogans like “Change”, “MAGA”, or “build back better”, letting people project whatever they want in there.
Actually having a campaign platform is fully optional.
What is not optional, however, is fearmongering and ad hominem attacks.
You cannot really get people to rally around something.
It would be dangerous to the status quo.
But you can get people to rally against something. Or someone.
Presidents split their time between doing things by executive order and undoing the previous president’s executive orders, senators consider filibustering their main job, and everyone is on board with things like packing the courts or gerrymandering
Tax cuts and bailout for the big corporations are the only thing that both parties agree on, so that kind of thing gets passed while barely getting mentioned in the media, before it’s back to slinging shit at each other.
Corruption continues, lobbying continues, shitty media continues.
50% of the country is even less happy about this than you are.
So call them names and dance on their graves! The status quo won again!
他们需要争取全国一半的人支持他们，而立场一致将是一个劣势。
相反，他们试图用“改变”、“让美国再次伟大”或“重建得更好”等空洞的口号，尽可能模糊地表达自己的立场，让人们想投射什么就投射什么。
实际上，是否有竞选平台完全是可选的。
然而，不可选择的是散布恐惧和人身攻击。
你不可能真正让人们团结在一起。
这对现状是危险的。
但你可以让人们团结起来反对某些事情或者反对某人。
总统们在执行行政命令和撤销前任总统的行政命令之间分配时间，参议员们考虑阻挠他们的主要工作，每个人都在做一些事情，比如塞满法庭或不公正地划分选区。
减税和救助大公司是两党唯一达成一致的事情，所以这种事情在媒体上几乎没有被提及的情况下就被通过了，然后又开始互相指责。
腐败还在继续，游说还在继续，垃圾媒体还在继续。
全国50%的人对此甚至比你更不高兴。
那就骂他们，在他们的坟墓上跳舞吧!现状又赢了!
Marc Bodnick
Here's a summary of what many of us think about politics today:
The root problem in American politics is that we can't actually sext the government that most people in America actually want.
以下是我们对当今政治看法的总结:
美国政治的根本问题是，我们实际上无法选择大多数美国人真正想要的政府。
Here's a summary of what many of us think about politics today:
The root problem in American politics is that we can't actually sext the government that most people in America actually want.
以下是我们对当今政治看法的总结:
美国政治的根本问题是，我们实际上无法选择大多数美国人真正想要的政府。
In other words,
1. In the US today, there is a strong centrist (or maybe center-right) plurality that favors a reasonable combination of:
Social liberalism / libertarianism - i.e., the government should stay out of our personal lives.
Free market-centric solutions to economic and social problems - low taxes, low regulation, market based incentives wherever possible
换句话说，
在今天的美国，有一个强大的中间派(或者可能是中右翼)多数派倾向于以下合理组合:
社会自由主义/自由主义——即政府应该不介入我们的个人生活。
以自由市场为中心解决经济和社会问题——低税收，低监管，尽可能制定以市场为基础的激励机制
1. In the US today, there is a strong centrist (or maybe center-right) plurality that favors a reasonable combination of:
Social liberalism / libertarianism - i.e., the government should stay out of our personal lives.
Free market-centric solutions to economic and social problems - low taxes, low regulation, market based incentives wherever possible
换句话说，
在今天的美国，有一个强大的中间派(或者可能是中右翼)多数派倾向于以下合理组合:
社会自由主义/自由主义——即政府应该不介入我们的个人生活。
以自由市场为中心解决经济和社会问题——低税收，低监管，尽可能制定以市场为基础的激励机制
2. Various constraints and incentives in American politics prevent this centrist outcome from happening, with two parties that are highly influenced and often controlled by the forces at the right and left poles.
As a result:
We have an impossible time cutting government spending, programs, and regulation when they don't make sense.
Natural social progress often takes way too long to happen. For example, it's exasperating how long it's taking America to legalize gay marriage despite the fact that a majority of Americans support it and it's obvious that this outcome is both morally imperative and historically inevitable.
We can't settle on market-based solutions, even when they make tons of sense, because entrenched economic forces exert disproportionate control of outcomes.
The extremists at each pole relentlessly use "wedge" social issues to distract Americans from important problems.
美国政治中的各种限制和激励因素阻止了这种中间派结果，因为两党都受到左右两极势力的高度影响和控制。
因此：
当政府开支、项目和监管没有意义时，我们不可能削减它们。
自然的社会进步往往需要很长时间才能实现。例如，令人恼火的是，尽管大多数美国人支持同性婚姻合法化，但美国花了这么长时间才将其合法化，很明显，这一结果在道德上是必要的，在历史上是不可避免的。
我们不能满足于基于市场的解决方案，即使它们很有意义，因为根深蒂固的经济力量在对结果的控制方面是不成比例的。
两极的极端分子无情地利用“楔子”社会问题来分散美国人对重要问题的注意力。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
As a result:
We have an impossible time cutting government spending, programs, and regulation when they don't make sense.
Natural social progress often takes way too long to happen. For example, it's exasperating how long it's taking America to legalize gay marriage despite the fact that a majority of Americans support it and it's obvious that this outcome is both morally imperative and historically inevitable.
We can't settle on market-based solutions, even when they make tons of sense, because entrenched economic forces exert disproportionate control of outcomes.
The extremists at each pole relentlessly use "wedge" social issues to distract Americans from important problems.
美国政治中的各种限制和激励因素阻止了这种中间派结果，因为两党都受到左右两极势力的高度影响和控制。
因此：
当政府开支、项目和监管没有意义时，我们不可能削减它们。
自然的社会进步往往需要很长时间才能实现。例如，令人恼火的是，尽管大多数美国人支持同性婚姻合法化，但美国花了这么长时间才将其合法化，很明显，这一结果在道德上是必要的，在历史上是不可避免的。
我们不能满足于基于市场的解决方案，即使它们很有意义，因为根深蒂固的经济力量在对结果的控制方面是不成比例的。
两极的极端分子无情地利用“楔子”社会问题来分散美国人对重要问题的注意力。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Henry R. Greenfield
Having looked into this a great deal as an expat American, I have been shocked at how polarized the US has become. Once you look at it though, the roots, the causes, the social media, it all makes sense.
I would like everyone to challenge me on what I am about to write and I don’t need any charts to prove it.
The best way is via a timeline of some key events so we all can understand more clearly:
作为一名外籍美国人，我对这件事进行了大量研究，我对美国的两极分化感到震惊。然而，一旦你看到它的根源、原因、社交媒体，一切都说得通。
我希望每个人都能对我将要写的东西提出质疑，我不需要任何图表来证明。
最好的方法是通过一些关键事件的时间表，这样我们都可以更清楚地理解：
Having looked into this a great deal as an expat American, I have been shocked at how polarized the US has become. Once you look at it though, the roots, the causes, the social media, it all makes sense.
I would like everyone to challenge me on what I am about to write and I don’t need any charts to prove it.
The best way is via a timeline of some key events so we all can understand more clearly:
作为一名外籍美国人，我对这件事进行了大量研究，我对美国的两极分化感到震惊。然而，一旦你看到它的根源、原因、社交媒体，一切都说得通。
我希望每个人都能对我将要写的东西提出质疑，我不需要任何图表来证明。
最好的方法是通过一些关键事件的时间表，这样我们都可以更清楚地理解：
1950’s
Postwar boom, unx membership up, US is the only country making anything. Massive infrastructure like national highway program. Taxes at 91% of income for highest earners.
Summary: Consensus everyone agrees that change is needed in the south and everyone is making money, moms are mostly at home. Building boom.
20世纪50年代
战后的繁荣，工会会员增加，美国是唯一能制造东西的国家。大规模的基础设施，如国家高速公路项目，对高收入者征收91%的税收。
总结：大家一致认为，南方需要变革，每个人都在赚钱，妈妈们大多在家、建筑热潮。
Postwar boom, unx membership up, US is the only country making anything. Massive infrastructure like national highway program. Taxes at 91% of income for highest earners.
Summary: Consensus everyone agrees that change is needed in the south and everyone is making money, moms are mostly at home. Building boom.
20世纪50年代
战后的繁荣，工会会员增加，美国是唯一能制造东西的国家。大规模的基础设施，如国家高速公路项目，对高收入者征收91%的税收。
总结：大家一致认为，南方需要变革，每个人都在赚钱，妈妈们大多在家、建筑热潮。
1960’s
All assumptions change country focuses on civil rights and vietnam war, however in the late 50’s the republicans realize they have to change as they were already a minority party. They develop the strategy that they have refined over 60 years.
Grab the ‘christian’ ground, oppose socialism and communism(from the 50’s onward), begin to demonize the left.
Nixon- a big breakthrough, southern strategy and welcoming the racists who left the Democratic party. Now the Republicans had a real strategy.
1970s
Last of the great days for american workers, slack performance by everyone including the workers who collected a lot of money and low QC on products. Importing begins big time but offshoring/outsourcing not yet.
20世纪60年代
所有改变国家的假设都集中在民权和越南战争上，然而在50年代末，共和党人意识到他们必须改变，因为他们已经是一个少数党了。他们制定了60多年来不断完善的战略。
抓住“基督教”的立场，反对社会主义和共产主义(从50年代开始)，开始妖魔化左派。
尼克松：来了一个重大突破，南方战略和欢迎那些离开民主党的种族主义者；现在共和党人有了真正的策略。
20世纪70年代
美国工人的好日子已经过去了，每个人的表现都很差，包括那些赚了很多钱的工人，产品质量也很低。开始进口了，但离岸/外包方面的工作还没有兴起。
All assumptions change country focuses on civil rights and vietnam war, however in the late 50’s the republicans realize they have to change as they were already a minority party. They develop the strategy that they have refined over 60 years.
Grab the ‘christian’ ground, oppose socialism and communism(from the 50’s onward), begin to demonize the left.
Nixon- a big breakthrough, southern strategy and welcoming the racists who left the Democratic party. Now the Republicans had a real strategy.
1970s
Last of the great days for american workers, slack performance by everyone including the workers who collected a lot of money and low QC on products. Importing begins big time but offshoring/outsourcing not yet.
20世纪60年代
所有改变国家的假设都集中在民权和越南战争上，然而在50年代末，共和党人意识到他们必须改变，因为他们已经是一个少数党了。他们制定了60多年来不断完善的战略。
抓住“基督教”的立场，反对社会主义和共产主义(从50年代开始)，开始妖魔化左派。
尼克松：来了一个重大突破，南方战略和欢迎那些离开民主党的种族主义者；现在共和党人有了真正的策略。
20世纪70年代
美国工人的好日子已经过去了，每个人的表现都很差，包括那些赚了很多钱的工人，产品质量也很低。开始进口了，但离岸/外包方面的工作还没有兴起。
1980’S
Reagan, Lee Attwater, demonizing the left. Willie Horton ads, blacks coming to get you. Socialism bad, strong on the christian right, beginning of christian coalition. Reagan era ends USSR but not communism, outsourcing begins in earnest. Japan the big threat, unxs begin to shrink rapidly.
1990’s
Democrats blx and Clinton adopts corporate strategy .
Republicans have the formula, working men angst, anger, christianity, Democrats go corporate and lose touch with their base. The divide becomes massive.
2000s
Bush takes the election to SCOTUS, 9/11, 2 wars, trillions in debt, economy collapses no more cooperation at all. They decide, THE ONLY SOLUTION IS DESTROY the Democrats with no cooperation.
20世纪80年代
里根，李·阿特沃特，妖魔化左派。威利·霍顿的广告，黑人来抓你。社会主义不好，基督教右翼势力强大，基督教联盟的开始。里根时代结束了苏联，但没有结束共产主义，外包正式开始。日本是最大的威胁，工会开始迅速萎缩。
20世纪90年代
民主党人眨眼了，克林顿采取企业战略。
共和党人有自己的套路，工人们焦虑、愤怒、信奉基督教，民主党人走向企业化，失去了与选民基础的联系。分歧变得巨大。
2000年代
布什将选举带到最高法院，9/11，两次战争，数万亿债务，经济崩溃，根本没有合作。他们决定，唯一的解决办法就是在不合作的情况下摧毁民主党。
Reagan, Lee Attwater, demonizing the left. Willie Horton ads, blacks coming to get you. Socialism bad, strong on the christian right, beginning of christian coalition. Reagan era ends USSR but not communism, outsourcing begins in earnest. Japan the big threat, unxs begin to shrink rapidly.
1990’s
Democrats blx and Clinton adopts corporate strategy .
Republicans have the formula, working men angst, anger, christianity, Democrats go corporate and lose touch with their base. The divide becomes massive.
2000s
Bush takes the election to SCOTUS, 9/11, 2 wars, trillions in debt, economy collapses no more cooperation at all. They decide, THE ONLY SOLUTION IS DESTROY the Democrats with no cooperation.
20世纪80年代
里根，李·阿特沃特，妖魔化左派。威利·霍顿的广告，黑人来抓你。社会主义不好，基督教右翼势力强大，基督教联盟的开始。里根时代结束了苏联，但没有结束共产主义，外包正式开始。日本是最大的威胁，工会开始迅速萎缩。
20世纪90年代
民主党人眨眼了，克林顿采取企业战略。
共和党人有自己的套路，工人们焦虑、愤怒、信奉基督教，民主党人走向企业化，失去了与选民基础的联系。分歧变得巨大。
2000年代
布什将选举带到最高法院，9/11，两次战争，数万亿债务，经济崩溃，根本没有合作。他们决定，唯一的解决办法就是在不合作的情况下摧毁民主党。
Up to 2016
Obama struggles, Democrats lose the plot, Republicans smash them in 2010, roots of anger now the way forward for Republicans, social media kicks in
2017-Present
Republicans have refined the formula, Democrats for years and years battle it out between ‘moderates’ with their corporate leanings and progressives who do not have a clue at how to run things.
TODAY
Democrats are lost, they do not get it. Republicans have perfected the plan, Trump will be sacrificed but in the end they have the upper hand as now asians, black men and latinos are voting for them.
The goal is the neutering or delegitmizing the Democrats.
截至2016年
奥巴马举步维艰，民主党人输了，共和党人在2010年击败了他们，愤怒的根源现在成了共和党人前进的方向，社交媒体开始介入
2017年至今
共和党人已经完善了这个方案，民主党人多年来一直在具有企业倾向的“温和派”和不知道如何运作的进步派之间进行斗争。
今天
民主党人输了，他们不明白。共和党人已经完善了计划，特朗普将被牺牲，但最终他们占了上风，因为现在亚洲人、黑人和拉丁裔都在给他们投票。
其目标是使民主党失去权力。
Obama struggles, Democrats lose the plot, Republicans smash them in 2010, roots of anger now the way forward for Republicans, social media kicks in
2017-Present
Republicans have refined the formula, Democrats for years and years battle it out between ‘moderates’ with their corporate leanings and progressives who do not have a clue at how to run things.
TODAY
Democrats are lost, they do not get it. Republicans have perfected the plan, Trump will be sacrificed but in the end they have the upper hand as now asians, black men and latinos are voting for them.
The goal is the neutering or delegitmizing the Democrats.
截至2016年
奥巴马举步维艰，民主党人输了，共和党人在2010年击败了他们，愤怒的根源现在成了共和党人前进的方向，社交媒体开始介入
2017年至今
共和党人已经完善了这个方案，民主党人多年来一直在具有企业倾向的“温和派”和不知道如何运作的进步派之间进行斗争。
今天
民主党人输了，他们不明白。共和党人已经完善了计划，特朗普将被牺牲，但最终他们占了上风，因为现在亚洲人、黑人和拉丁裔都在给他们投票。
其目标是使民主党失去权力。
Simply LISAble
Stupidity can't be fixed. Unfortunately, I believe that America will always be divided.
I think the biggest reason for this situation sits in the biased propaganda.
I think a lot of people (on both sides) just don't have the maturity to question what they see, hear or smell… they just believe everything.
a country where minorities are victims of a political system that wants to suppress diversities; a country that wants to kill the Earth and doesn't care about the future of our grandchildren; a country that loves guns and trusts a violent police system; a country that lives by the survival law of the strongest…
or a country that is constantly banding backward to accommodate citizens that don't respect the American Constitution; a country that accepts mediocracy and doesn't strive to reach the highest ambitions; a country that wants to be lazy expecting a Government handout; a country that allows immigrants to jump over the border and have access to the same rights; a country that prioritizes buying a latte from Starbucks over having a retirement plan…
But, both situations above have one thing in common: there is one evil side, an ENEMY:
愚蠢是无法修复的。不幸的是，我相信美国将永远处于分裂状态。
我认为造成这种情况的最大原因在于有偏见的宣传。
我认为很多人(双方)都没有成熟到质疑他们所看到、听到或闻到的东西，他们只是相信一切。
在这个国家，少数民族是压制多样性的政治制度的受害者；这是一个想要毁灭地球，却不关心我们子孙后代未来的国家、一个热爱枪支并信任暴力警察系统的国家、一个遵循强者生存法则的国家。
或者说这是一个不断倒退以容纳不尊重美国宪法的公民的国家、一个接受平庸而不追求最高目标的国家、一个懒惰地期待政府施舍的国家、一个允许移民越过边境并享有同样权利的国家、一个优先考虑从星巴克买拿铁而没有退休计划的国家。
但是，上述两种情况都有一个共同点:它们都有一个邪恶的一面，一个敌人。
Stupidity can't be fixed. Unfortunately, I believe that America will always be divided.
I think the biggest reason for this situation sits in the biased propaganda.
I think a lot of people (on both sides) just don't have the maturity to question what they see, hear or smell… they just believe everything.
a country where minorities are victims of a political system that wants to suppress diversities; a country that wants to kill the Earth and doesn't care about the future of our grandchildren; a country that loves guns and trusts a violent police system; a country that lives by the survival law of the strongest…
or a country that is constantly banding backward to accommodate citizens that don't respect the American Constitution; a country that accepts mediocracy and doesn't strive to reach the highest ambitions; a country that wants to be lazy expecting a Government handout; a country that allows immigrants to jump over the border and have access to the same rights; a country that prioritizes buying a latte from Starbucks over having a retirement plan…
But, both situations above have one thing in common: there is one evil side, an ENEMY:
愚蠢是无法修复的。不幸的是，我相信美国将永远处于分裂状态。
我认为造成这种情况的最大原因在于有偏见的宣传。
我认为很多人(双方)都没有成熟到质疑他们所看到、听到或闻到的东西，他们只是相信一切。
在这个国家，少数民族是压制多样性的政治制度的受害者；这是一个想要毁灭地球，却不关心我们子孙后代未来的国家、一个热爱枪支并信任暴力警察系统的国家、一个遵循强者生存法则的国家。
或者说这是一个不断倒退以容纳不尊重美国宪法的公民的国家、一个接受平庸而不追求最高目标的国家、一个懒惰地期待政府施舍的国家、一个允许移民越过边境并享有同样权利的国家、一个优先考虑从星巴克买拿铁而没有退休计划的国家。
但是，上述两种情况都有一个共同点:它们都有一个邪恶的一面，一个敌人。
In the first scenario, the enemies are the “bad guys”. Stuck-up closed-minded patriots that have a gun in their truck, and a Confederate flag outside their front door.
In the second scenario, the enemy is a generation that believes in unicorns, free healthcare, and higher education at “no-cost”. The same people who want to “save the world” from violence, while rioting in honor of their beliefs.
Like I said at the beginning, I don't think this situation can be easily doused.
Hypothetically, perhaps America should start this transition by banning fake media (left and right). Also, it would be great to learn to listen, compromising where possible. Last but not least, all Americans should honor the ones who sacrificed their lives for this Country.
In other words, I think all Americans should stand on a COMMON GROUND and grow from there; using diversities to improve, rather than destroy.
在第一个场景中，敌人是“坏人”。顽固封闭的爱国者在他们的卡车里放着枪，在他们的前门挂着联邦旗帜。
在第二种情况下，敌人是相信独角兽、免费医疗和“免费”高等教育的一代人。这些人想要从暴力中“拯救世界”，同时为了他们的信仰而暴动。
正如我一开始所说，我认为这种情况不容易平息。
假设，也许美国应该通过禁止假媒体(左派和右派)来开始这种转变。此外，学会倾听，在可能的地方妥协是很好的。最后但并非最不重要的是，所有美国人都应该尊重那些为这个国家牺牲生命的人。
换句话说，我认为所有美国人都应该站在共同的立场上，并在此基础上成长;利用多样性来改善，而不是破坏。
In the second scenario, the enemy is a generation that believes in unicorns, free healthcare, and higher education at “no-cost”. The same people who want to “save the world” from violence, while rioting in honor of their beliefs.
Like I said at the beginning, I don't think this situation can be easily doused.
Hypothetically, perhaps America should start this transition by banning fake media (left and right). Also, it would be great to learn to listen, compromising where possible. Last but not least, all Americans should honor the ones who sacrificed their lives for this Country.
In other words, I think all Americans should stand on a COMMON GROUND and grow from there; using diversities to improve, rather than destroy.
在第一个场景中，敌人是“坏人”。顽固封闭的爱国者在他们的卡车里放着枪，在他们的前门挂着联邦旗帜。
在第二种情况下，敌人是相信独角兽、免费医疗和“免费”高等教育的一代人。这些人想要从暴力中“拯救世界”，同时为了他们的信仰而暴动。
正如我一开始所说，我认为这种情况不容易平息。
假设，也许美国应该通过禁止假媒体(左派和右派)来开始这种转变。此外，学会倾听，在可能的地方妥协是很好的。最后但并非最不重要的是，所有美国人都应该尊重那些为这个国家牺牲生命的人。
换句话说，我认为所有美国人都应该站在共同的立场上，并在此基础上成长;利用多样性来改善，而不是破坏。
Charles Tips
We are not creating wealth. Instead we are creating massive debt.
Wealth is poorly understood. It is denominated in terms of money but is not synonymous with money. It is produced by making fixed assets productive but is distinct from those assets. Most of what is produced in terms of goods and services is not wealth, but some is.
Wealth is certainly found in for-profit corporations, those that are operating well anyway. It is also produced by non-profit corporations (which do not pay tax on it in most instances because they have agreed to socialize it and not let it accumulate to the benefit of individuals). Finally, the public sector, government at all levels, can harbor wealth.
我们不是在创造财富。相反，我们正在制造巨额债务。
人们对财富知之甚少。它以货币计价，但不是货币的同义词。它是通过使固定资产具有生产力而产生的，但与固定资产不同。以商品和服务的形式生产出来的大多数东西不是财富，但有些是财富。
财富当然存在于那些经营良好的营利性公司。它也由非营利性公司生产(在大多数情况下，这些公司不纳税，因为他们同意将其社会化，而不是让它积累到个人的利益中)。最后，公共部门，各级政府，都可以拥有财富。
We are not creating wealth. Instead we are creating massive debt.
Wealth is poorly understood. It is denominated in terms of money but is not synonymous with money. It is produced by making fixed assets productive but is distinct from those assets. Most of what is produced in terms of goods and services is not wealth, but some is.
Wealth is certainly found in for-profit corporations, those that are operating well anyway. It is also produced by non-profit corporations (which do not pay tax on it in most instances because they have agreed to socialize it and not let it accumulate to the benefit of individuals). Finally, the public sector, government at all levels, can harbor wealth.
我们不是在创造财富。相反，我们正在制造巨额债务。
人们对财富知之甚少。它以货币计价，但不是货币的同义词。它是通过使固定资产具有生产力而产生的，但与固定资产不同。以商品和服务的形式生产出来的大多数东西不是财富，但有些是财富。
财富当然存在于那些经营良好的营利性公司。它也由非营利性公司生产(在大多数情况下，这些公司不纳税，因为他们同意将其社会化，而不是让它积累到个人的利益中)。最后，公共部门，各级政府，都可以拥有财富。
As Adam Smith described wealth
It is resources available for all discretionary purposes - profound or frivolous - consumption or investment - private or government. It is a measure of economic power - either in terms of money or in its labor and commodity equivalents - that is available without diminishing the productive capacity of the nation.
Back in the sixties, we had wealth in government. We had an interstate highway program, a space program, an arms race, rampant school building to accommodate us Boomers, a war halfway around the world and the Great Society War on Poverty. All of this lavish spending with low usage of debt was possible because we had very few people in government, and the ones we had were relatively low-paid.
正如亚当·斯密所描述的财富
它是可用于所有自由裁量目的的资源——深奥的或琐碎的——消费或投资——私人的或政府的。它是一种衡量经济实力的标准——无论是以货币还是以劳动和商品等价物来衡量——在不削弱一个国家的生产能力的情况下，它是可用的。
早在60年代，我们在政府中拥有财富。我们有州际高速公路计划、太空计划、军备竞赛、为了容纳我们这些婴儿潮一代而疯狂修建学校、一场横跨半个地球的战争，以及“向贫困宣战的伟大社会”。所有这些奢侈的消费都很少使用债务，这能实现是因为我们政府中的人很少，而我们的人收入相对较低。
It is resources available for all discretionary purposes - profound or frivolous - consumption or investment - private or government. It is a measure of economic power - either in terms of money or in its labor and commodity equivalents - that is available without diminishing the productive capacity of the nation.
Back in the sixties, we had wealth in government. We had an interstate highway program, a space program, an arms race, rampant school building to accommodate us Boomers, a war halfway around the world and the Great Society War on Poverty. All of this lavish spending with low usage of debt was possible because we had very few people in government, and the ones we had were relatively low-paid.
正如亚当·斯密所描述的财富
它是可用于所有自由裁量目的的资源——深奥的或琐碎的——消费或投资——私人的或政府的。它是一种衡量经济实力的标准——无论是以货币还是以劳动和商品等价物来衡量——在不削弱一个国家的生产能力的情况下，它是可用的。
早在60年代，我们在政府中拥有财富。我们有州际高速公路计划、太空计划、军备竞赛、为了容纳我们这些婴儿潮一代而疯狂修建学校、一场横跨半个地球的战争，以及“向贫困宣战的伟大社会”。所有这些奢侈的消费都很少使用债务，这能实现是因为我们政府中的人很少，而我们的人收入相对较低。
Lately we have one person in five paid off the public dime (30 million workers out of 150 million total in 2009), and on average they earn more than a private worker (now approaching half again more). The thing is, though they feel the tax bite, public workers do not pay taxes in the real sense as their pay comes from tax revenues--no new money enters the system.
Even that optimistic approach means that the total taxes of three out of five taxpayers are needed to pay for the labor component of government, leaving two out of five to pay for everything else government is supposed to do. That is impossible. Even the most labor-intensive service companies struggle mightily past forty-percent labor costs. Back in the sixties, fewer than one worker in ten worked for the government, which allowed the accumulation of wealth to put toward ambitious programs.
At the same time, we have saddled business with so much regulation and so many social obligations that businesses are sitting on their hands and we've had the greatest decrease in new business formation ever.
"Oh, but the stock market is booming," you counter. Yes, but only because investment in small and start-up business is considered far too risky while the safest investments in bonds and treasuries pay so little. The fact that the stock market alone is consequently soaring should be regarded as a huge warning flag.
最近，我们有五分之一的人拿政府工资（2009年，1.5亿工人中有3000万人是公务员），平均而言，他们比私人企业的工人挣得多（现在又接近一半了）。问题是，尽管公共工作人员感受到了税收的影响，但他们并没有真正意义上的纳税，因为他们的工资来自税收——没有新的资金进入系统。
即使是这种乐观的方法也意味着，需要五分之三的纳税人的总税收支付政府的公务员工资，需要五分之二的纳税人缴纳的税收支付政府应该做的一切事情上的花费。这是不可能的，即使是最劳动密集型的服务公司也在努力克服40%的劳动力成本。早在60年代，只有不到十分之一的工人为政府工作，这使得积累的财富能够用于雄心勃勃的项目。
与此同时，我们给企业施加了太多的监管和社会责任，以至于企业无所作为，新企业的数量出现了有史以来最大的下降。
你反驳道：“哦，但股市正在繁荣。”。是的，但这只是因为投资小企业和初创企业被认为风险太大，而最安全的债券和国债投资回报如此之低。因此，仅股市就在飙升，这一事实应被视为一个巨大的警告信号。
Even that optimistic approach means that the total taxes of three out of five taxpayers are needed to pay for the labor component of government, leaving two out of five to pay for everything else government is supposed to do. That is impossible. Even the most labor-intensive service companies struggle mightily past forty-percent labor costs. Back in the sixties, fewer than one worker in ten worked for the government, which allowed the accumulation of wealth to put toward ambitious programs.
At the same time, we have saddled business with so much regulation and so many social obligations that businesses are sitting on their hands and we've had the greatest decrease in new business formation ever.
"Oh, but the stock market is booming," you counter. Yes, but only because investment in small and start-up business is considered far too risky while the safest investments in bonds and treasuries pay so little. The fact that the stock market alone is consequently soaring should be regarded as a huge warning flag.
最近，我们有五分之一的人拿政府工资（2009年，1.5亿工人中有3000万人是公务员），平均而言，他们比私人企业的工人挣得多（现在又接近一半了）。问题是，尽管公共工作人员感受到了税收的影响，但他们并没有真正意义上的纳税，因为他们的工资来自税收——没有新的资金进入系统。
即使是这种乐观的方法也意味着，需要五分之三的纳税人的总税收支付政府的公务员工资，需要五分之二的纳税人缴纳的税收支付政府应该做的一切事情上的花费。这是不可能的，即使是最劳动密集型的服务公司也在努力克服40%的劳动力成本。早在60年代，只有不到十分之一的工人为政府工作，这使得积累的财富能够用于雄心勃勃的项目。
与此同时，我们给企业施加了太多的监管和社会责任，以至于企业无所作为，新企业的数量出现了有史以来最大的下降。
你反驳道：“哦，但股市正在繁荣。”。是的，但这只是因为投资小企业和初创企业被认为风险太大，而最安全的债券和国债投资回报如此之低。因此，仅股市就在飙升，这一事实应被视为一个巨大的警告信号。
很赞 4
收藏