Ignoring the Debt Problem

The 2016 debates revealed the problem that has been avoided by the government and its future president; the debt problem. The questions asked by the representatives do not give the candidates a chance to say what they plan to do with America's problems. They do not inform the people nor give the information needed to show what they are like. Two writers give their take on this, "Insults, invective and pandering have been poor substitutes for serious debate about the direction in which this country is going - or should be going." This debt issue is missing from the debate and topics thrown back and forth between sides; it's missing the use of moral vocabulary about the problem. Specifically in this third debate, Trump and Hillary were asked about the national debt and economic proposals. Yet neither of them spoke specifically about it nor "took responsibility" to say what would happen if the proposals went through.

The national debt has grown to 75 percent in 2016. With increasing numbers, it is essential that citizens are aware and the candidates tell us their plan to fix it. As a business man, Trump seems to the more of the right fit in this case. He has dealt with money for his career and should know the right way to endure this problem. Hillary want to raise taxes so we can get all these things, but right now we can't afford these luxuries. 

Neither of the candidates showed a great deal of concern toward the debt problem. Confronting the situation head on will bring more ways we can deal with this and shine light on the problem we face. The buildup of debt has caused us to decay. Part of this problem has come from the promised pensions to retired people and government employees who will basically, "Bankrupt the state or the national or the local government." Other things such as social security or Medicare are added to the debt because they are channeled through the states to individual people. We claim to be paying for those, but reality states that we are 'borrowing against the future.' Letting our debt grow only burdens us while constricting the budget and ending all other essential spending. 

The argument that Albert Mohler makes is that we are missing the word 'theft' in our debt case. It seems to be that our present generation is stealing from future generations, because they are the ones going to have to clean up the mess. By spending what we do not have, we are stealing from our future descendants. Proverbs 22:7 says, "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave." We aren't exactly 'slaves' to money but it is what runs our country, and it is essential to our lives. It doesn't have to be our idol by which we worship and consumes our desires. In the words of Nick Miller, "We kill each other for paper. And I gotta tell you man, that's sad." Our money is going down the toilet.

Can We Be Adults Here?

                                               

Our generation seems to grow more sensitive each time a touchy subject is brought to the surface. We are living in a time where our 'common ground' only encourages anger and dispute. Where has the spine of our nation gone when we need it the most?

The First Amendment guarantees America's freedom of speech. It is our constitutional right that nobody is allowed to take away. But it seems like we are being more restricted then ever by not having total speech 'freedom' such as in high schools, colleges, and certain public areas. Back when it was first created, freedom of speech had been under threats and sometimes compromised. Now our generation (the millennials) do not care as much for free speech as it had been yearned for in the past.  

Colleges and universities are stopping speakers from coming on campuses because of demanding students wanting only 'safe speakers'. The kind that do not bring any message that they would consider to be intolerant to students. This uprising has been increasing in recent months, and there is now 'an outbreak of liberal concern'. Because of arguments coming back to rebound on itself, older American liberals recognize the seeds of intolerance sown because of them. The ideology of inclusiveness and diversity is prevailing among campuses, yet in that note, inclusiveness and diversity is what's being shut down. 

Speakers on campus must speak only about what is deemed okay by the students. The LGBT issue is one of the most controversial issues everywhere. For college campuses, the speaker must agree with the revolution of LGBT pride or else they will not be allowed there. This problem only brings forth a weakness among college students when in reality, college is supposed to make them grow up. It is not safe for education because  education requires the sharpening of the mind. Arguments, debates, and confrontation of different topics are what creates a stronger minded person ready for the real world. If someone gets offended or gets their feelings hurt, colleges now have a 'safe space' with blankets and puppies so that person can calm down. If college pamphlets had a section to dedicate their 'safe space' to, then you should think twice about what the message is. College equips you for life, and if you can't handle a little disagreement without being butt hurt, you shouldn't be in college. The real world doesn't have safe spaces, you have to get over yourself and actually live in a reality other than your imagination. 

When faced with the topic of free speech, most people would say that they of course like to exercise their rights. But what happens after someone disagrees with them on a topic? The issue created makes it okay for them to speak, but the people against them definitely do not have the right of free speech. This makes free speech a liability, not equal for everyone, just the person who thinks everyone else is wrong. 

We need to be the people that change this problem and use our right as Americans for free speech. How can we turn against free speech when the people protesting it are using their free speech? If they don't want speech, then they shouldn't be allowed to go through with what they want. With no free speech, we as Americans no longer hold power in our country as a democracy, and that is what America stands for.

Make an Argument, Get a Government

Joseph Ellis' book American Creation is about our triumphs and overcoming our failures as a new nation rising up. Chapter three in his book is titled "The Argument." This is the rising and founding of our government which is still with us today. Ellis writes to portray the importance of all the hardships we went through that impacted the way we discern our government and the people who reside within.

Our independence had just been fought, and won for. It was a victory over the British Empire and the creation of an American Empire. Our expansion was indeed a manifest destiny that sparked a revolution in the eyes of America and her people. But the unification of the states did not last much longer than the war. As soon as it ended, states started going their separate ways. George Washington stated that we needed a strong central government to manage the states wandering around the continent. It was difficult to give that idea when the government they just escaped was like the one portrayed in Washington's mind. 

"The gap between these two political camps was an unbridgeable chasm separated by a fundamental difference of opinion over the true meaning of the American Revolution."

The new effort was to create a form of government that embraced the American dream and a firm ground for all the changes to come. 

                                          

One major person in the ratification of our government system was James Madison. He exposed the failings of a weak central government and fought to find a new one. Alongside him were Washington, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and Patrick Henry. The fear of Washington and Madison was that the America they worked so hard for was on the edge of anarchy, the fear that the nation would not fulfill its promises. Many situations went downhill after trying to create a solution. Madison, attempting to mend the Articles of Confederation, invested in developments to fix them. But they were somewhat complicated and failed to work out. The one that succeeded involved one man, George Washington. He was the one with most experience and that began his progression of becoming the future President. 

 Madison and Washington both agreed that "the full promise of the American Revolution could be secured only by a stable and wholly consolidated nation-state." The first development was concerning navigation rights of the Mississippi River. John Jay suggested that they give up American rights in able to use the Mississippi River. But this initiative was only temporary and partial interests, and would not benefit for a long period of time. 
The second development was the state of union among rebel farmers in America. Also known as, "Shay's Rebellion", some twelve hundred rebels fought to earn their own land back after they came back from the war. This did not last long nor was it very effective in the struggle for their rights.  
The third development was the failure of the Annapolis Convention. There was only five states that showed up to the convention, but its initial failure emboldened him to try a business proposal from Alexander Hamilton.  
The last development was the manipulation by Madison to get Washington out of retirement and back to doing what he was great at. What they both realized what was best for the constitution was complete change of the Articles of Confederation. 

"The Articles of Confederation did not need to be revised, they needed to be completely replaced with a fully empowered national government that possessed a clear mandate to coerce the states in both foreign and domestic policy."

Between March and May of 1787, Madison endorsed a two-pronged campaign in order to prepare himself for the debates in Philadelphia. He was a strong orator and a 'frustrating' opponent because he always had better swaying opinions and relevant information. Edmund Randolph wrote to Madison saying that they would not tolerate the enhancement of the Articles. A radical reform would not appeal to the public opinion and almost surely lose. But Madison was proud; "if not extravagant, absolutely unattainable and unworthy of being attempted." His outline of a answer was made clear to him. There should be bicameral legislature representing instead of the single-house legislature representing the states. This new created federal government was going to be what they hoped for in fighting their battle for independence, a government made for the will of the people.

Strong-headed Madison arrived in Philadelphia on May 5, 1787, determined to face the challenge and a clear vision of the proper shape a truly national government needed to assume. He knew that he was fully armed to fight the political conflicts of the debate. The interests of the people determine the overall thoughts of the government. There is a gap between "will of the people" and the abiding interest of the public. Madison was fighting for a republic. They work best in small geographic areas, where the elected representative remained close to the interests of the citizens who elected them. Larger republics increase the number of competing factors, this made space an asset rather than a liability.

The debate as a whole was another "standing miracle", equivalent to the victory for our independence. It was the typical, "He said, she said" of government arguments. The people deliberating calmly on what form of government would be the best according to their happiness. But having a form of government meant that there would still be some people against it; therefore, there were Anti federalists. They believed they were protecting ordinary Americans from a takeover of the American Revolution. The main goal of the Federalist was to contest that claim by stating that the Constitution was a rescue rather than a betrayal. All the time, debates raged and some Americans were upset with our government, and both Hamilton and Madison were forced to frame their argument on behalf of the constitution. 

The constitution became the central government with only enumerated powers essential for preservation of the union. Madison had found the beauty of ambiguity or also shifting sovereign-ties. The argument eventually won out, it triumphed defied logic because the argument itself is the answer. This is how we do or create things all the time, inside or outside the government. We argue to make the best out of something; "thereby, making the Constitution, like history itself, an argument without end."