If it were discovered that the Earth was going to be unavoidably destroyed in 10 years, what would the United States do?
The US government would form committees to study the problem, then committees to study the problem of why the first committees had not found a solution. Then it would investigate whether the committees studying the committees studying the problem were actually studying the problem or just going to stripper joints. Then there would be committee meetings about whether they should have more committee meetings on the subject.Obama would issue an executive order prohibiting Asteroids from striking the Earth, Biden would tell people to shoot the asteroid through the door, Bush would try to sell it to the Chinese and fail, Hillary WOULD sell it to the Chinese and blame it on the vast Right wing conspiracy, Trump would build a casino and vacation spot on it. Obama would blame it on Bush. Fox news would blame it on Obama. CNN would blame it on Climate change. PBS would do a special on how it’s all the fault of White males.then all the elites would go hide down in a doomsday bunker 9 years and 360 days later the committees would return their reports and say they needed more time to study the problem and get it.US media outlets would hold a doomsday countdown. Game shows would be developed with end of the world themes. Commercials would hawk special asteroid repellent bracelets and special doomsday bunkers for $19.95, and if you call now you get the part that delivers oxygen to the bunker for just $20,000 in shipping and handling costs.What the American people would do and against laws most likely is build their own space craft, colonies elsewhere and bunkers and prepare to harvest the critter when it fell.
So what's the problem with Death Panels?
Fair is fair. If innocent babies can be killed just because the mother does not want them, then why not the elderly, the imfirm, the disabled? Where does the government draw the line. After all, sparing one senior citizen would cost thousands of dollars. Thats money that could be better spent on a washington party or a trip for one of our elected officials. How many lives could have been exchanged for that photo op fly over in NY. How many lives can be exchanged for the parties Obama has hosted in the white house? How about his trips to Europe and Asia. We could exchange alot of lives for the annual pork barrel spending. How many elderly could be denied health care to save 18 billion$ for pork projects? Seems the obama administration has their priorities mixed up.
Since Donald Trump could be the first US president since Jimmy Carter to run for re-election during a recession, will it hamper his chances to win again?
Recession? What recession? Our GDP is growing leaps and bounds. The fed is slowly transitioning to measures designed to keep the economy from growing too fast, which is what they're supposed to do in situations like this. Unemployment is extremely low - at or below the healthy, “natural” unemployment level.I'm not sure how anyone who knows what the word “recession” means could even suspect that we are in a recession right now.If voters choose based on the economy, Trump will win. It isn't fair, because presidents are rarely responsible for the state of the economy during their first terms, but, good or bad, the public does seem to vote that way. Much of the current wonderful state of our economy goes back to the G. W. Bush administration - tax cuts, opening up US oil drilling when gas was $5 a gallon, and the bailouts in response to the housing crash at the very end of his presidency. President Obama continued with trillions in bailouts and expanded unemployment benefits to keep the economy alive and get it growing again. Trump is reaping the benefits of all that, plus his own tax cuts and slashing of costly overregulation is helping boost the economy even further. His tariffs run the risk of an overall slowing of GDP growth, as any new taxes are prone to do, though combining them with across-the board tax cuts in other areas might blunt their effect.President Trump can't honestly be given full credit for the positive state of the economy any more than Presidents G. W. Bush or Obama could be given responsibility for the poor state of the economy during their administrations. However, the voters seem more likely to vote for an incumbent during a good economy regardless.