Moderator: Mod Squad
BeeAre wrote:race will be an issue for as long as it takes for "reverse racism" to be discredited as an idea, which will only happen once people accept the historical precedent of SPECIFICALLY GIVING A BENEFIT TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE HISTORICALLY LACKING THAT BENEFIT in order to correct that particular social problem of inequity.
See: the denial of white privilege, the outcry against affirmative action, and really any time white americans get upset that because they personally haven't seen themselves having benefited from white privilege then the whole thing clearly never existed at all.
@Q.U.: Who in the mainstream media (or even FoxNews) is making any sort of argument that Obama isn't doing a good job because he's black? I think people are making the argument that he's doing a bad job because he makes a lot of promises and then doesn't keep more than a third of them.
And it went alongside the other shrubbery, only slightly lower and to the right, with another administration down the middle.RuffDraft wrote:
It's not a Bush, it's a Shrubbery.
It seems that some people in Congress are looking to hold the country hostage to get political concessions.icha_icha_paradise wrote:Wait, so if we don't raise the debt cap things get messed up? Then what are we waiting for?
The debt ceiling has never been met. It has never served to limit government spending. Raising the ceiling represents continuing the status quo. That said, running into the debt ceiling would result in a sudden drop in government spending, which would be bad for the economy on its own. It's just that the fallout from defaulting on the debt would be so much worse that it's more in the focus.Littlisk wrote:A higher debt cap could help stimulate parts of the economy thats struggling.
It's not really needed, but it's there for a reason. Originally, Congress directly authorized acquisition of debt, but World War I needed a lot of stuff to be done, so Congress delegated authority on specifics while constraining total debt to a certain amount. It's supposed to be a check on the Executive branch, though it hasn't really been useful for that.icha_icha_paradise wrote:Why did we need a debt cap in the first place?
As in property insurance rather than health insurance?Q.U. wrote:Let's discuss the public option the GOP added to insurance companies, the one which does in fact work retroactively.
As in property insurance rather than health insurance?
Valhallen wrote:The debt ceiling has never been met. It has never served to limit government spending. Raising the ceiling represents continuing the status quo. That said, running into the debt ceiling would result in a sudden drop in government spending, which would be bad for the economy on its own. It's just that the fallout from defaulting on the debt would be so much worse that it's more in the focus.
@Q.U.: Why should the government not subsidize insurance companies? Explain, in detail, what is wrong with it, because I'm not sure I understand your concern.
...is this based on the fact that America was founded on the idea of personal freedoms and moderate government?Q.U. wrote:The American fixation on personal freedom and low government control or regulation will become your downfall one day.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Hiroko and 13 guests