Monday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed. The next most active thread was titled, "Republicans and the debt ceiling" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on January 11th, but has been revived and reinvigorated recently as we approach the end of the government's ability to borrow money and, therefore, have sufficient funds to pay its bills. The original poster refers to "20" who are eager to screw around with the debt ceiling. I don't remember the context in which this thread was started, but I assume that the original poster was asking about a group of House Republicans since they have been outspoken about using the debt ceiling as leverage to achieve political goals. The thread has now reached 61 pages, adding 8 pages yesterday alone. I have only read a few posts, but one thing I noticed is how many posters appear to have little understanding of the debt limit and the ramifications of reaching it. For example, one poster claimed, "These have happened before many times with no stock market crash or trillions lost in equity, or significant job losses." This is completely false. The US has never breached the debt limit. We came within two days of doing so in 2011 and that resulted in a downgrade of the US's credit rating which increased borrowing costs. In addition, there was a steep drop in the stock market. Given such confusion, it might be helpful to clarify some of the basics of the debt limit. There are two terms that are often confused, the national debt and the budget deficit. The debt limit applies to the first, the total amount of money that the US owes to lenders. Because of the second, the budget deficit, the government spends more than it takes in as revenue. Therefore, to pay its financial obligations, the government must borrow money. If we reach the debt limit, which we are now just days away from doing, the government will be unable to borrow additional funds and, therefore, will have insufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. The government would likely default on its loans, likely having global financial repercussions. As we saw in 2011, simply getting near the debt ceiling resulted in a credit downgrade and stock market upheaval. A default would have much more serious ramifications. Any number of government services would be impacted and many might cease operation. Another aspect of the debt ceiling that is frequently misunderstood is that the debt is necessary to finance prior spending, not future spending. We can reduce future spending all that we want, but we would still need to increase the debt ceiling simply to pay for past expenditures. Much of the debt is a result of tax cuts approved by Republicans during the Trump administration. This reduced revenue to the government and increased the amount of money that needed to borrowed. By arguing for future spending cuts (but exempting the military and entitlements), while refusing any tax increases, the Republicans are attempting to force major cuts to a relatively small number of programs that are favored by Democrats.

Next was a thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum titled, "Mississippi bans trans student from graduation because she refused to wear ‘boy clothes’ under gown". Once again, a topic dealing with transgender issues is among the most active. This one focuses on a decision by a court in Mississippi prohibiting a trans girl from wearing a dress under her graduation gown. As the original poster points out, anti-trans posters constantly claim that they are primarily concerned about puberty-blocking drugs and surgical removal of body parts. But, this incident involves neither of those. This is a simple issue of clothing and you would think we are well past the point where clothes were controversial. Well, you would be wrong. A poster who appears to be posting from Alabama repeatedly responded to say that the student was just attempting to seek attention and that "you" — apparently meaning posters from the DC area — should mind our own business and let southern states do what they want. The contradiction of the poster demanding freedom in order to impinge upon another individual's freedom was apparently lost on him, if not on other posters in the thread. Generally posters in the thread are in favor of allowing students to dress as they want. Some posters argue that school dress codes might require certain styles of dress, but others suggested that dress codes shouldn't be gendered. If dresses are acceptable for other girls, they should be fine for trans girls as well. Most posters seem to have trouble understanding why this is controversial considering a gown would mostly hide what is underneath in any case. But, conservatives are clearly triggered. There are repeated posts about "men wearing dresses". This provokes a debate about other cultures in which men, indeed, do wear skirted garments similar to dresses. But, that entire argument misses the point. This is not about a man or boy wearing a dress. Rather, it involves a trans girl wearing a dress. As such, many of those opposed are clearly demonstrating their complete unwillingness to recognize trans identities. Whether it is by misgendering, accusing trans people of having mental health issues, or belittling them, these posters demonstrate clear transphobic attitudes. Again, as the original poster noted, anti-trans folks generally claim that their concern is about children being harmed by transition. Another group argues their concerns are about sports and women's rights. But this occasion involves none of that. It is simply about a dress. Whether they like it or not, those worried about surgery and those worried about sports are bedfellows with the transphobes opposed to trans girls wearing dresses. This might be a good opportunity for them to reject that association, though I didn't notice any of them doing so in this thread.

The next most active thread was titled, "AITA for not wanting DH to give MIL 4K to clear a debt" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster of this thread provides a lot of background to explain that her mother-in-law is retired and has been making interest-only payments on a home equity line of credit that she took out to pay for a kitchen remodeling. The original poster believes that the mother-in-law has made poor financial decisions which include retiring when she couldn't afford to do so. The original poster's husband wants to spend $4,000 from their savings to help his mother clear up the HELOC, but the original poster is opposed. She believes that her mother-in-law, who is 69, can still work and that they shouldn't be paying for her poor financial planning. This is a 15 page thread and I haven't read very much of it. Frankly, I cannot imagine what about this story is worth talking about for that many pages. From what I have read, many posters do think the original poster is wrong and believe that her husband should provide the money to his mother. Others propose various arrangements or conditions that might make providing the funds more palatable to the original poster. Some posters support the original poster and don't think she should provide the money, generally arguing that the mother-in-law should take care of her financial obligations herself. There is some discussion about the impact of this issue on the original poster's relationship with her husband and whether providing the money would help or harm that relationship. Other posters delve deeply into the original poster's finances to determine whether she can afford to offer the money. Posters seem to come down on both sides of that decision. Several posters propose that this expenditure be viewed in terms of how it impacts their budget going forward, thinking that this might help clarify things one way or another. They argue that the decision should be financial rather than emotional. But, when dealing with family members, it is a lot to ask that emotions be left out.

The final thread at which I'll look today is one that I considered skipping. Posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum and titled, "Found a bra in DS’s room ..", the original poster says — as is clear from the title — that she found a bra, which she believes belongs to her son's girlfriend, in her 17-year-old son's bedroom. She is surprised because both families are fairly conservative. The original poster asks if she should talk to either her son or the girl's parents about this. Google has a tendency to be very sensitive about topics involving young people and sex. As such, this thread may get flagged due to violating the advertisers' terms of service and have to be removed. Also, this thread triggers my troll detection instincts. Most of those responding argue that the original poster should make sure that her son knows about birth control (especially condoms) which he should be sure to use. Among other things, the original poster expresses surprise about the possibility that her son is having sex because, in addition to coming from conservative families, both her son and the girl are straight-A students. She also says that they have only previously talked about abstinence because they don't approve of premarital sex. This leads to a debate about the value of abstinence-only for birth control. Most of those responding don't have much faith in it and view the original poster's son as an example of where promoting abstinence likely failed. There are a couple of abstinence supporters however. There is also a discussion about whether political views align with having or not having sex as a teenager, with some posters contending that conservative teenage girls are more likely to end up pregnant. Another sidetrack is about whether the original poster should have been looking around her son's room. There are quite a few completely off the wall responses in this thread such as those that discuss Mormons despite their having nothing to do with the topic.