• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does everyone just want to bitch and argue and not work on compromises that will work?

craig

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
11,076
Reaction score
4,429
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.
No, I just want to smash the Republicans for their tax cut.
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.

Other than the Plutocrats would want the government to pay for all the childcare costs of their employees so their employees ae not distracted by their own children and can work for less money, there is no reason for the plutocrats to care about any of that.
 
What is a plutocrat? It is a historical slur that has no meaning today.
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.

Are those not state/local issues?

Obviously, they have long since been taking care of by blue state/cities and only remain problems in red states/cities.
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.

Are you a nationalist as well as a socialist?
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.

Money for schools isn't the problem in many depressed areas. It's the children coming to school every day from dysfunctional homes that are often lacking most all of the components needed for nurturing a child. Do you really think a child is going to learn when he or she is more preoccupied with being hungry, or living around drugs, alcohol, and violence?

In many homes, the children just fighting to survive.

The USA has the highest rate of single parent households in the world, and single parent households have close to a 33% poverty rate.


 

Swabbie, tell me what strikes you about this story.


 


First two paragraphs:
HOUSTON — Shell Reed's 1-year-old needed diapers. Her 4-, 6- and 8-year-old girls were outgrowing their clothes faster than she could replace them. And with her oldest kids — 11, 12 and 13 — taking their classes virtually from home, food expenses for the family were soaring at what seemed to be the worst possible time.
“As soon as we get the groceries, they’re gone the next day,” said Reed, who moved to Houston’s largest housing project five years ago to start an online sales business and has seen her family of nine’s stretched budget broken by a year-long pandemic.
 
It is not looking so good for a compromise between two ideologies that would rather point out the actions of the other than work with them on anything.
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.
Money doesn't help schools in depressed neighborhoods, it's typically squandered because of inept administration so that is not a solution to a problem it's really a continuation of it.

Healthcare for drug addicts has always been there they just choose not to use it because taking drugs is easier. Offering drug addicts an option is something that is acceptable to me but if they don't want to get well they never will. Any former addict will tell you that.

I already have to pay for other people's children to go to school I have to pay to feed them. Why shouldn't they have to pay for anything they brought them into the world.
 

The US needs to take another look at returning to the food distribution of AFDC that we had in the 60's. At least we would know that actual food is reaching the table.
 
The US needs to take another look at returning to the food distribution of AFDC that we had in the 60's. At least we would know that actual food is reaching the table.


I don’t have the answer, but having children that one cannot provide for is wrong on so many levels. It’s not just a white/poc issue either, imo.
 
It is not looking so good for a compromise between two ideologies that would rather point out the actions of the other than work with them on anything.
I hate to be a bother OS but I'm not seeing the "both sides" you are. We saw exactly those actions from republicans every time there is a democrat president. Remember the now laughably small stimulus from President Obama, republicans didnt vote for it. And they're not voting for it under Biden. And dont forget, their only complaint for trump's 2 trillion dollar stimulus was that democrats made them wait 3 days. An even better example is Obamacare. President Obama wanted single payer. It was going nowhere in the democratic congress so he literally compromised on the republican plan of mandates. And they didnt vote for that either.
 
Did the democrats compromise with President Trump? Nope.
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.
Republicans don't compromise. It's a tactic that has worked for them ever since Obama was elected. It's been so long that they've forgotten how. They think that the fact that Democrats are allowed to run for office at all is a huge concession on their part and we should all be grateful.
 
Money for schools in depressed neighborhoods. Healthcare for drug addicts on the street. Childcare for working people that don't have relatives that ban baby sit.

There is nothing stopping any state/local government from doing so except resistance from (by?) those being forced to fund (super expensive and likely ineffective) government programs to try to do so. Why folks believe this might (could?) work at the federal level, yet is not worth proving anywhere at the state/local level is never explained.
 
Kee p in mind that the Democrats have to work with a political party whose leaders opposed the incredibly successful TARP program in 2008. If they couldn't get behind that, there isn't much left to talk about.
 
Politics and decision making in DC has become a divisional sport.

Nothing more and nothing less.
rn, thank you for that "both sides" post. Maybe you can help out because I'm not seeing the "both sides" thing you so clearly see. I do see republicans' decision making as a "divisional sport". They voted for stimulus under trump and Bush but not Obama and now Biden. democrats voted for stimulus under Bush, Obama, trump and Biden. I can post more examples if you want. anyhoo, can you give me an example similar to that from democrats? thanks in advance.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…