It's important to prevent any "triangulation" on the tax issue.

[Ken Burch]

Assuming this nightmare gets through the conference committee, It's not going to achieve anything to try to find some sort of halfway point(or quarter-way point) on restoring revenues.

The only chance there's going to be to keep this any sort of a decent society is to restore the pre-tax theft bill revenue levels. No point at all in settling for anything short of that.

[McCamy Taylor]

1. When Dems regain control, the GOP will tell its base that

any effort to roll back the cuts are "tax hikes" and we will see paid "ordinary middle class" protesters decrying the "tax hikes" and a bunch of mindless couch potato "independent" voters will nod their heads...and then Dems in Congress will say "I dunno. Raising taxes might be unpopular in this political environment."

Is that the kind of triangulation you want to avoid? Good luck with that.

[Ms. Toad]

2. The point in settling for something short of restoration is

to mitigate the harm that provisions to do people. Remember, we're supposed to be the party that cares about people.

Just two examples:

If there's a bill that restores the health insurance mandate - even if it does not reverse the entire bill, any Democrat who actually cares about ensuring that people with significant medical problems have access to insurance must vote for it.

If there's a bill that protects Medicare from PAYGO cuts - even if it does not reverse the entire bill - every Democrat who actually cares about ensuring that people who rely on Medicare to cover costly treatments (including cancer care) must vote for it.

I will actively work against any of my Democratic legistators who votes against measrues designed to mitigate the worst aspects of this bill by putting party politics above the needs of people. Putting party politics first puts us on par with the Republicans, who had doubts but voted for this monstrosity in the first place out of misguided party loyalty.

[Ken Burch]

7. Do you actually think there's any chance of either of those things, though?

Of any measure, at least between now and the midterms, in which either of those things would be accepted by the Thug majority?

What I was talking about was, say, settling for a measure that only increased the corporate tax rate from 20% to 22%-which would make net to no difference.

[Ms. Toad]

10. I don't have a problem with refusing to tinker with the top corporate tax rate.

That doesn't directly hurt people.

My problem is refusing to tinker with revenue matters that actually impact people - particularly those on the low income end, or who are in need of government assistance - out of a politically driven "need" to make them own it.

For example, in theory Susan Collins wasn't going to vote for the bill as long as there was a possibility that Medicare would be cut. She got worthless assurances that didn't end up in the bill itself that Congress would waive the impact of the PAYGO provisions on Medicare, if it came to that (that's the fearmongering about cancer no longer being covered). There was an amendment to that effect that failed. An amendment was also offered to require 60 votes to cut Medicare - it lost by one vote (I believe with Pence casting the tie breaker).

If, for example, Susan Collins or Jeff Flake, or any other Republican does come along and offer anything of that nature (whether it has a chance of passing or not), my Democratic legislators had better not withhold their vote becuase it originated with a Republican, because failing to pass such a measure has a direct impact on people.

My quarrel isn't with whether there is a chance of any positive results - you're probably right there. My quarrel is with the concept embedded in your framing. You argued against compromising. As to things that directly impact people's lives, people have to come first (even if it is only a teeny tiny fraction of restoration), because it is not teeny tiny to those impacted.

[Ken Burch]

11. I'd revisit my position if anything on the lines of what you mentioned was proposed.

I'm not against any and all compromises on any and all issues.

What I oppose is any move by the leaders of OUR party to accept the permanent loss of massive ground.

If a short-term compromise is made, they have an obligation, in my view, to NOT push people to give up on getting any more anytime soon. The goal of fixing bad compromises should be something we use to motivate organization and turnout.

[roamer65]

3. Dems can target certain portions of this POS.

For instance, increase the top rate of 38.5 to 50 percent as deficit reduction.

The middle class and poor would love it.

[Ken Burch]

9. That would be excellent.

n/t.

[MikeydaDog]

5. All or nothing?

[NurseJackie]

6. I know.

[jalan48]

8. I agree we need to make this about class warfare. Wall Street and the big banks are our enemies.

It's a message the average American can understand. Tweaking the edges of a grossly unfair economic system is not the answer. People will stay home rather than vote for politicians who they perceive to be representatives of moneyed interests.

[Nitram]

12. There will be no "triangulation."

The tax scandal is theirs.