Compromise Big Picture vs Little Picture

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Wait, wait, wait, I have the solution! It's simple, yet brilliant! It's a three step process, I will call it my three step approach to avoid poverty.

Step 1. Don't get pregnant or get someone pregnant until married.

Step 2. If he is not a good heart-ed man, with excellent moral values, with an education, don't marry him. (May take a couple to three years to figure this out)

Step 3. If she is not a kind heart-ed women, with superb moral values, with an education, don't marry her.

You see, problem solved!

Very intelligent you are doing nothing to fix the issue of the current Single Mom's. It would be great if Single women didn't get pregnant or if married women didn't get divorced. But the reality is that single women do get pregnant and married women do get divorced. Somebody said that we need to find the dad and make him help more that will help some but won't solve the whole issue as often the dad has no job or a low paying job.

So instead of a solution you make a comment that doesn't address the issue in any way at all. So far what I am seeing is everybody is really good at blaming other side but nobody is willing to actually look at a problem and try to solve it. I am seeing people on the left and the right who really don't have a clue they are both part of the problem.

If you think a govt Social Welfare program will fix this, you are mistaken. We have been trying it (Social Welfare) since the 1960's it didn't, isn't, and won't work.

No mercy, no compassion for individuals who grow up in poverty, with poor education and no role models? Nothing?

It is also apparent that my grandfather should of never married under these rules. Never-mind the fact that he went off to WWII, came back and bought land and became a very very successful farmer. Given he grew up in rural Alabama during the depression, like many others education wasn't a priority as much as finding ways to put food on the table during this period.

And what are the rules on education? Is it high school? bachelors? graduate? doctorate? Does it matter what school you went to? Does it matter if it was a 2 year or a 4 year? and even what degree you earned?

As educated had a different definition to many people.

[cooltigger21 0]

The responsibility for compromise, in todays' society, among the talking heads and especially with Obama and the democrats is all on the republicans. They won so now they have to compromise. Nobody ever demanded the democrats compromise or Obama compromise. Everybody blamed the republicans. Now the American people completely repudiated what has been the policy for the last 6 years but somehow the ones that brought those polices on us don't have to compromise. Obama said he wants common ground but that only means if the congress sends him something he likes completely. He has no intention of compromising an inch on any of this. He is a rigid idealogue and dead set on finishing his fundamental transformation of this country. He talked about the 2/3 who didn't vote and acted as if all of them would have voted in favor of him.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

The responsibility for compromise, in todays' society, among the talking heads and especially with Obama and the democrats is all on the republicans. They won so now they have to compromise. Nobody ever demanded the democrats compromise or Obama compromise. Everybody blamed the republicans. Now the American people completely repudiated what has been the policy for the last 6 years but somehow the ones that brought those polices on us don't have to compromise. Obama said he wants common ground but that only means if the congress sends him something he likes completely. He has no intention of compromising an inch on any of this. He is a rigid idealogue and dead set on finishing his fundamental transformation of this country. He talked about the 2/3 who didn't vote and acted as if all of them would have voted in favor of him.

Who is saying that both sides don't have to compromise? The die hards? just like the ones on the other side? I have about 3 posts on here saying to hell with whichever side won't compromise. The majority of people that I speak to claim to be tired of the entire Republican/Democrat BS and want something done. News channels prior to the election were showing interviews with citizens that felt the same way.

Can't the same thing about not comprising be said about McConnell with his we will both wake up the same people comment?

Mean truthfully that is my biggest fear atm, that McConnell and Obama are just going to get into some kind of pissing contest that is personal and nothing is going to get done over the next two years except the satisfaction of those two egos.

But here, just for you. The past needs to be dropped by both parties and work toward the future beginning today. If Obama won't compromise and work with the Republicans then to hell with him. He absolutely positively must compromise with the other side. Responsibility is as much on them as it is on the other side.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Your push for "compromise" is odd. The election was an overwhelming rebuke of President Obama and the Democrats' policies. The majority of Americans don't want what the Dems are pushing.

No major legislation will be accomplished during the last two years of Obama's tenure. His statements yesterday confirm his recalcitrance even when McConnell offered to work with BO on common interests.

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

[AUUSN 823]

Your push for "compromise" is odd. The election was an overwhelming rebuke of President Obama and the Democrats' policies. The majority of Americans don't want what the Dems are pushing.

No major legislation will be accomplished during the last two years of Obama's tenure. His statements yesterday confirm his recalcitrance even when McConnell offered to work with BO on common interests.

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

You say that but states that voted for republicans also voted for policies that can be defined as progressive: minimum wage increases, etc.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

You say that but states that voted for republicans also voted for policies that can be defined as progressive: minimum wage increases, etc.

Due to compromise or just bad economic policies ? There is no doubt, Keynesian economics has duped many Republicans. Doubt the votes were due to compromise.

[cooltigger21 0]

Your push for "compromise" is odd. The election was an overwhelming rebuke of President Obama and the Democrats' policies. The majority of Americans don't want what the Dems are pushing.

No major legislation will be accomplished during the last two years of Obama's tenure. His statements yesterday confirm his recalcitrance even when McConnell offered to work with BO on common interests.

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

You say that but states that voted for republicans also voted for policies that can be defined as progressive: minimum wage increases, etc.

Well not all of the republican party is conservative. The leadership in Congress is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

[AUUSN 823]

Your push for "compromise" is odd. The election was an overwhelming rebuke of President Obama and the Democrats' policies. The majority of Americans don't want what the Dems are pushing.

No major legislation will be accomplished during the last two years of Obama's tenure. His statements yesterday confirm his recalcitrance even when McConnell offered to work with BO on common interests.

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

You say that but states that voted for republicans also voted for policies that can be defined as progressive: minimum wage increases, etc.

Well not all of the republican party is conservative. The leadership in Congress is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Completely agree and the new Majority leader is by no means a conservative. He is the essential Repub elite and K street friend.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Your push for "compromise" is odd. The election was an overwhelming rebuke of President Obama and the Democrats' policies. The majority of Americans don't want what the Dems are pushing.

No major legislation will be accomplished during the last two years of Obama's tenure. His statements yesterday confirm his recalcitrance even when McConnell offered to work with BO on common interests.

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

And Republican were the only other choice. So Americans took home the fat girl/guy at the bar at closing time to satisfy their needs cause there was nothing else.

Interesting how the concept of compromise is odd, and you don't like to address that I am holding both parties responsible equally going forward.

Lets not forget that it was McConnell that stated the number one goal of Republicans was to make Obama a one term President, so I would be wary of him also. Which is why I stated I think the mix of these two could potentially just be a personal grudge match that does not benefit anyone (blame on both).

But again, I think whoever does the grid-locking over the next two years is the party that will pay the price in 2016.

[AUUSN 823]

You say that but states that voted for republicans also voted for policies that can be defined as progressive: minimum wage increases, etc.

Due to compromise or just bad economic policies ? There is no doubt, Keynesian economics has duped many Republicans. Doubt the votes were due to compromise.

It was progressive social issues as well. In CO the personhood amendment failed as well despite electing a Republican Senator.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

And Republican were the only other choice. So Americans took home the fat girl/guy at the bar at closing time to satisfy their needs cause there was nothing else.

Interesting how the concept of compromise is odd, and you don't like to address that I am holding both parties responsible equally going forward.

Lets not forget that it was McConnell that stated the number one goal of Republicans was to make Obama a one term President, so I would be wary of him also. Which is why I stated I think the mix of these two could potentially just be a personal grudge match that does not benefit anyone (blame on both).

But again, I think whoever does the grid-locking over the next two years is the party that will pay the price in 2016.

Tuesday was a repudiation of Obama. Even the Dems don't want to be associated with him because of his obstinance. MM has already extended an olive branch.....the president not so much. Gridlock will be laid at the President's feet and Dems will take another beat down in 2016.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

And Republican were the only other choice. So Americans took home the fat girl/guy at the bar at closing time to satisfy their needs cause there was nothing else.

Interesting how the concept of compromise is odd, and you don't like to address that I am holding both parties responsible equally going forward.

Lets not forget that it was McConnell that stated the number one goal of Republicans was to make Obama a one term President, so I would be wary of him also. Which is why I stated I think the mix of these two could potentially just be a personal grudge match that does not benefit anyone (blame on both).

But again, I think whoever does the grid-locking over the next two years is the party that will pay the price in 2016.

Tuesday was a repudiation of Obama. Even the Dems don't want to be associated with him because of his obstinance. MM has already extended an olive branch.....the president not so much. Gridlock will be laid at the President's feet and Dems will take another beat down in 2016.

And if the gridlock is the democratic responsibility then I will vote Republican in 2016, unless their policies are somewhere that I just can not support with a vote at that time.

Like I said, I voted a split ticket. My vote is 100% undecided and open to discussion free agent style in 2016.

Keep pounding the party line at me if you want, but it is useless. I've agreed the votes were against Obama and his policies, I agree with those that state Republicans won cause they were the only other choice also. I will judge whether McConnell's supposed olive branch is real or fictitious over the next two years, the same with Obama's statement that going forward he will not view issues as democrat/republican and do whats best for the people.

Perhaps one succeeds and one fails, perhaps they both fail. Maybe all this will result in one side floating closer toward the middle and away from the edges.

[cooltigger21 0]

Your expectation of compromise will be disappointing.

And Republican were the only other choice. So Americans took home the fat girl/guy at the bar at closing time to satisfy their needs cause there was nothing else.

Interesting how the concept of compromise is odd, and you don't like to address that I am holding both parties responsible equally going forward.

Lets not forget that it was McConnell that stated the number one goal of Republicans was to make Obama a one term President, so I would be wary of him also. Which is why I stated I think the mix of these two could potentially just be a personal grudge match that does not benefit anyone (blame on both).

But again, I think whoever does the grid-locking over the next two years is the party that will pay the price in 2016.

Tuesday was a repudiation of Obama. Even the Dems don't want to be associated with him because of his obstinance. MM has already extended an olive branch.....the president not so much. Gridlock will be laid at the President's feet and Dems will take another beat down in 2016.

Whatever MM may be, he is a pretty astute politician. He got Pat Roberts off his duff and made him make some changes in his campaign staff which helped him win in Kansas. I think he realizes, or at least I hope he does, that the republican party has a golden opportunity here. They will bring up bills that are popular with the American people and dare the democrats in the Senate to filibuster them or Obama to veto them

[homersapien 11,357]

The Republicans will over-play their hand. It's their nature.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The Republicans will over-play their hand. It's their nature.

To be fair, I think that is the political climate in general. Ideological idiots are all the rage. On both sides.

[AuburnNTexas 7,138]

Newton's Third Law: Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction. This holds true in Physics and it holds true in Politics.

I believe people on both sides of the political spectrum would concede that the US government is bloated and could be trimmed down. The disagreement might be where we trim but not the need for trimming. Let's say a miracle occurred and both sides agreed to some very drastic cuts to bring our government under control. What would be the impact? It would be chaos large numbers of government employees would be out of jobs and have no income so would go on welfare. The non-government work force does not have enough jobs to hire these hard working people. It would probably put us in a recession if not a depression.

What I am saying even if you see a problem and you see a solution you have to implement your solution in a way that doesn't create a new and possibly worse issue. You would have to have a long range plan where you made the changes over many years to allow the economy to absorb the people who would be leaving government jobs.

Getting back to ideas for getting people off of welfare it started out as single mothers but really it is about people using Government services. maybe we should approach it the same way a business would approach a problem. First they would float a few different plans then rather than just implementing one or the other they would do very limited experiments testing each of the different plans, they would analyze the results eliminate the plans that were not viable then either select one or after testing realize that no one worked but pieces of a few had some positive effects then create a couple of new plans for testing. Depending on the results they would slowly implement the best plan or plans. They might find out that one plan works well in an urban environment, another works better in a suburban environment, and another works better in a rural environment.

How do you test the plans. Put different plans together at the Local Level provide Federal Funds to test the plans at the local level. Local level might be at State Level, or county Level. If for example we had 4 different plans we would test all 4 in multiple similar setting (Urban, Suburban, Rural) with similar demographics so we would be comparing same to same. Empirical data would be used to select the plan or plans to be used in the future as opposed to ideology.

The plans would not have to be Government run but could be. In the past local community groups, Churches, charities helped people some of plans could test using them as a way of addressing the issues. If something like this proved a good alternative some checks and balances would need to be put in place to be sure the money given to an organization was actually used for the planned purpose.

Most of the people on this board are intelligent people and most probably went to Auburn and graduated from Auburn. Most of us have worked or are working and have an idea how to get a job done. I don't understand why government can't use the same scientific and business principles that have been proven to work for so many issues to solve the issues facing our country.

[cooltigger21 0]

Newton's Third Law: Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction. This holds true in Physics and it holds true in Politics.

I believe people on both sides of the political spectrum would concede that the US government is bloated and could be trimmed down. The disagreement might be where we trim but not the need for trimming. Let's say a miracle occurred and both sides agreed to some very drastic cuts to bring our government under control. What would be the impact? It would be chaos large numbers of government employees would be out of jobs and have no income so would go on welfare. The non-government work force does not have enough jobs to hire these hard working people. It would probably put us in a recession if not a depression.

What I am saying even if you see a problem and you see a solution you have to implement your solution in a way that doesn't create a new and possibly worse issue. You would have to have a long range plan where you made the changes over many years to allow the economy to absorb the people who would be leaving government jobs.

Getting back to ideas for getting people off of welfare it started out as single mothers but really it is about people using Government services. maybe we should approach it the same way a business would approach a problem. First they would float a few different plans then rather than just implementing one or the other they would do very limited experiments testing each of the different plans, they would analyze the results eliminate the plans that were not viable then either select one or after testing realize that no one worked but pieces of a few had some positive effects then create a couple of new plans for testing. Depending on the results they would slowly implement the best plan or plans. They might find out that one plan works well in an urban environment, another works better in a suburban environment, and another works better in a rural environment.

How do you test the plans. Put different plans together at the Local Level provide Federal Funds to test the plans at the local level. Local level might be at State Level, or county Level. If for example we had 4 different plans we would test all 4 in multiple similar setting (Urban, Suburban, Rural) with similar demographics so we would be comparing same to same. Empirical data would be used to select the plan or plans to be used in the future as opposed to ideology.

The plans would not have to be Government run but could be. In the past local community groups, Churches, charities helped people some of plans could test using them as a way of addressing the issues. If something like this proved a good alternative some checks and balances would need to be put in place to be sure the money given to an organization was actually used for the planned purpose.

Most of the people on this board are intelligent people and most probably went to Auburn and graduated from Auburn. Most of us have worked or are working and have an idea how to get a job done. I don't understand why government can't use the same scientific and business principles that have been proven to work for so many issues to solve the issues facing our country.

People in government don't care about shrinking it. They have one view, making it bigger and increasing its involvement in and control over our lives. They don't view any government program as needing anything resembling reform much less getting rid of it. We have multiple agencies and programs stacked on top of each other to deal with welfare.