Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?
Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.
Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?
How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?
If you compare it with most other rpg:s there’s actually a lot of both dungeons and dragons in DnD.
That’s at least 204 federal full time employee wages
Choosing silence is choosing the side of the oppressor. Silence only ever supports the status quo.
This actually.
Or against sexual violence. Which we honestly also could do away with.
Have borrowed a billion dollars.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Seems like you’re running in to the same problems the rest of the world has, only slower. You don’t even have to come up with a solution, just steal one.
Besides, the state retirement fund is only structured that way as a cash buffer, borrowing the retirement fund of a whole generation. You could just as well go back to how it was done in the 70ies with the retirement fund actually built from people’s taxes, and not from the next generation’s - boom, no more problems with uneven generation populations.
Why doesn’t the working class, the larger of the two, simply not eat the owning class?
Jokes aside; seems to me the problem is that policy is set on feelings rather than reality, and then the argument of “not sustainable” gets irrelevant (which is why the policy carries on even though demonstrably wrong).That I can understand, cutting off one’s nose to spite the face kinda deal. But if you’re spiteful, it might be a reasonable (although not rational) choice.
If you’re looking for efficient and/or rational policy, you need more mature representatives, simple as.
Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. What is it that’s unsustainable with social security?
Benefits increase GDP growth, cushions impact on performance of market upheavals, increases political stability, reduces poverty, increases health and productivity and of course increases happiness.
It would seem to me that it’s a sound investment for both economic, societal, moral and selfish reasons. Please tell me where my analysis or the data doesn’t support my conclusion.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m trying to read your argument generously, and it comes off as: a minority has to work with the enemy to have a chance at achieving some of its goals.
Please correct me, as that doesn’t seem right?
The GOPedo with Trump are still in the popular minority of votes, they haven’t been neither popular majority nor willing to compromise for 50 years.
White Christians aren’t a US minority group, or do you mean that the GOPedo has negotiated with them for the current policies? (With minorities I refer to political minority powers, not necessarily demographics)
Or is it the plurality of voters that should accept working with Trump over Biden to get some of their policy? It would seem that Biden would be the compromise candidate, as Trump doesn’t seem to be pursuing any voter driven policy (health care, jobs, lower inflation, lower cost of living, legalising drugs, etc.), besides perhaps those of further US minorities (Heritage foundation, oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, Russia).
Would you please clarify what you’re arguing for with your picked examples?