For those of you who are U.S. citizens

[SolarpunkFan]

If you're opposed to the current tax bill then the number to call Congress is: (202)-224-3121.

It's out of the House so ask for the Senate and ask both of them to oppose the bill (if they don't already). Phone call beats email because the phone calls are taken by a live operator instead of accumulating in an inbox somewhere.

(Sorry about this thread if it's not good enough, time is getting short and I want to ensure people are able to do something before Senate starts voting. If this thread is considered garbage then I will take any punishment levied upon me without complaint.)

[The Romulan Republic]

Thank you for posting this. I'll try and call today or tomorrow.

[SolarpunkFan]

Thank you for posting this. I'll try and call today or tomorrow.

The vote might be happening today so calling right now would be a good idea just FYI.

[The Romulan Republic]

So noted.

[SolarpunkFan]

Fucking hell...

Senate Republicans have the votes to pass their tax plan

Republican Senate efforts to secure support for an overhaul of the nation's tax system appeared successful Friday, as at least 50 GOP members -- enough to advance the proposal -- have said they'll support passing the bill.

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a key hold-out, announced just after noon that he would back the plan. Republicans can pass the legislation with 50 members and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence. This leaves Republican leaders two undecideds -- Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Bob Corker of Tennessee -- assuming no further changes upset senators who are already backing the bill.

"We have the votes," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said walking to the Senate floor following a conference meeting Friday.

in a public statement announcing his support, Flake said he was given promises from Senate GOP leadership and the Trump administration for a "growth-oriented legislative solution" to protect recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Collins appeared very likely to support the bill send a pair of tweets Friday outlining measures that had been included that she proposed.
Republican leaders were racing Thursday night and Friday morning to find support for the bill, hoping to avoid a repeat of the health care bill debacle this summer that left them empty handed. Tensions were running high in the Senate, where Republican tax writers were reworking the tax bill, trying to find a way to satisfy competing interests and shore up votes.

The bill received a major boost Friday morning when Daines announced he would back the bill, after he was assured of "significant tax relief for Main Street businesses." Johnson later Friday morning issued a statement supporting the bill.

Senate Republicans met earlier in the Strom Thurmond Room of the Capitol to continue the bill's negotiation Friday morning. Collins, a key undecided vote, said GOP leaders are still "working through a few more of my issues" but as she was walking toward the conference meeting, she said, "We're making great progress."

But behind the scenes, Republican members and aides were fuming at Corker, who was demanding last-minute offsets for the GOP tax bill out of fear that it would raise the deficit. Corker's demands weren't entirely new, but were crystallized further Thursday afternoon when the Joint Committee on Taxation, the independent tax scorekeeper, announced that even with projected economic growth, the Republican tax bill still would add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Then, Corker learned that a trigger he demanded in the tax bill that would automatically increase taxes if the tax legislation didn't generate the growth that Republicans anticipated, wouldn't pass Senate rules and couldn't be included.

The news led to Corker holding court on the Senate floor on and off for nearly an hour as an amendment vote was held open and dozens of reporters filled the Senate chamber to watch the drama unfold from above.

As CNN reported earlier Thursday, a throng of Republicans encircled Corker and Flake as Sen. Pat Toomey, a member on the Senate Finance Committee who has cut deals with Corker on the tax bill already, stood next to Corker, explaining something at length.

At one point, the Senate's Parliamentarian came over and Corker used his hands to try to convey a point to her for several minutes.
Corker walked across the chamber to speak with Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine. The two men looked over some papers, then walked back over the Republican huddle. Corker asked more questions. At one point Toomey grew audibly frustrated, this time standing face-to-face with the Tennessee Republican.

"Furious," one aide responded when asked how GOP senators were responding behind closed doors to what Corker did on the floor. "Didn't need to be done publicly. Didn't need to cause a scene. We know it's a problem. Fix it behind closed doors."

Right now, according to aides, staff and senators are working through several different proposals to try to address Corker's issues -- issues that grew more problematic with the JCT report.

Corker, according to aides, wants even more revenue than the trigger would've snapped into effect.

"When the trigger doesn't work, you have to come up with, I think, $350 billion," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. "That makes everything different. So, we'll get there, because failure's not an option."

There were a few options for getting back the revenue, but none of them would satisfy the entire conference. One option, Texas Sen. John Cornyn floated, would be to gradually raise the corporate tax rate, which Republicans had planned to lower to 20%. That would surely upset House Republicans and Trump who had lobbied aggressively to drop the corporate tax rate to 15%. The other option was to not completely repeal the alternative minimum tax, a levy that is used to ensure wealthy individuals cannot just use tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes all together.

But Republicans were still working on how to put the pieces together.

McConnell can afford to lose two Republican senators, but with so many competing concerns, leadership will have to make tough decisions about who to appease based on the math. Flake joins Corker in sharing concerns about the deficit and GOP aides say leaders now view Corker and Flake as a package deal, meaning they either assuage their concerns, or figure out a way not to lose any other senators if they want to pass the bill at all.

Johnson had tried to lobby leadership to give so-called pass-throughs -- businesses that pass profits to owners who pay taxes on the individual side -- additional tax breaks. Collins, who was a key "no" vote on health care also must be won over. Collins has asked leadership and the Trump administration to promise her that they will support a package that she says would help stabilize the Obamacare marketplace after Republicans repeal the individual mandate in their tax bill. She has also asked leadership to include a provision that would allow individuals to deduct state and local property taxes up to $10,000.

The predicament leadership faces now isn't all that unlike the one they found themselves in on health care. If McConnell appeases Johnson and boosts the tax break for pass-throughs (which costs money), he could alienate Corker and Flake who have lobbied to make the tax bill less expensive. If he appeases Collins, he could face problems with the Senate bill when it goes to conference with the House.
Collins acknowledged the struggle ahead.

"I'm going to have more discussions with the House," Collins told reporters on Thursday evening.

[The Romulan Republic]

Called my Senators, as well as Collins and Flake.

If the bill passes, though, it is not the end. It is the beginning. The repeal of this bill will be as much a rallying cry for the opposition in 2018, as the repeal of Obamacare was for the Right in 2010- and with far greater justification.

[Highlord Laan]

Hahaha. You actually think calling or speaking to your reps would even have an impact, let alone actually work.

Are you donating millions to their coffers? Are you buying them yachts and week-long trips to the Bahamas? Are you an Evangelical donor? None of these?

Than fuck you, you have no voice. In fact, fuck you twice, since you're not one of their knuckle-dragging retard voters.

My so-called "representatives" are the simpering pile of dipshit bitch-flesh Deb Fischer and the unrepentant shitheel fuckball Ben Sasse. You seriously think someone disagreeing with their brainless republitard agenda would even be given the time of day when they have legions of brainless corn-fucking rurals that keep voting their ilk into office?

If so, I have some wonderful beachfront property in the sandhills to sell you.

I hope the republitards get everything they want and more. Exactly everything they want, all the way to 2020 and beyond. Keep piling it on and on, it will make my laughter when it all explodes all the sweeter as I watch professionally corrupt politicians get dragged screaming into the street by angry mobs.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hahaha. You actually think calling or speaking to your reps would even have an impact, let alone actually work.

Are you donating millions to their coffers? Are you buying them yachts and week-long trips to the Bahamas? Are you an Evangelical donor? None of these?

Than fuck you, you have no voice. In fact, fuck you twice, since you're not one of their knuckle-dragging retard voters.

My so-called "representatives" are the simpering pile of dipshit bitch-flesh Deb Fischer and the unrepentant shitheel fuckball Ben Sasse. You seriously think someone disagreeing with their brainless republitard agenda would even be given the time of day when they have legions of brainless corn-fucking rurals that keep voting their ilk into office?

If so, I have some wonderful beachfront property in the sandhills to sell you.

I hope the republitards get everything they want and more. Exactly everything they want, all the way to 2020 and beyond. Keep piling it on and on, it will make my laughter when it all explodes all the sweeter as I watch professionally corrupt politicians get dragged screaming into the street by angry mobs.

Yes, we are all aware of your fetish for violent revolution, which long predates this particular bill. Nor does it much surprise me that you would be sufficiently devoid of empathy to find amusement at the prospect of plunging our country into bloody chaos.

If someone advocated violence because they truly believed it was a necessary evil, I might disagree strongly with them, but at least I could respect that they had good intentions.

You, on the other hand, are arguing for bloodshed not as a necessary evil, a grim necessity, but because you want it. Because it amuses you. But it wouldn't be just corrupt politicians being dragged into the streets and butchered, if we got to that point. It would be interns and staff who just happened to work their. It would be ordinary people in their homes, people who didn't have the "right" loyalties or the "right" beliefs or (depending on which side got to them first) the "right" skin color or gender or sexual orientation. Men. Women. Children.

And with all due respect, people like you are a big part of the reason why we're in the current mess to begin with- I saw mindlessly raging anti-establishment people back Trump, or at least refuse to back Clinton against him, in 2016 precisely in the hopes that it would trigger a collapse of the system.

So people like you, who want the world to burn, actively worked to put us in this mess, and now you use it as a pretext to justify the blood you always wanted. Because its not about making the world a better place. It is, by your own admission, about pointing and laughing while you watch it burn.

You are what the would-be despots want- a citizen who not only has given up on democracy, but actively encourages others to do so. Who spreads fear and despair and hate, so that people will try to solve their problems with bullets in the street rather than votes.

On behalf of those of us who actually tried to stop this: Fuck You.

[MKSheppard]

Meh. It shows the rank hypocrisy of the system -- Democrats are all for massive spending when it's their pet projects being pushed, and vice versa; and both cry bloody murder about the deficit when it's the other side's pet project being pushed.

Burn it down, all of it.

[SolarpunkFan]

If the bill passes, though, it is not the end. It is the beginning. The repeal of this bill will be as much a rallying cry for the opposition in 2018, as the repeal of Obamacare was for the Right in 2010- and with far greater justification.

I'm aware of this. (Huh... perhaps being around here has calmed me down a bit, thanks folks! )

I'm certainly getting more engaged civically these days. This is the first time I've called my senators about something and I'm planning on supporting a candidate for my state governor. I actually feel less powerless when I do this stuff.

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing I've noticed is a subtle shift in tone in Left-wing discussions- no bickering over the primary, no "both parties are just as bad". Its all focused on the Republicans. I hope that lasts.

The downside is the comments advocating political violence. I reported to Facebook a number that were fairly explicit (discussing coordination/specific dates, in some cases, for implied violent acts).

[Simon_Jester]

TRR, yeah. There's nothing like seeing King Stork in action to make you stop coming up with bullshit false equivalencies about how King Log sucks and is no better than any other candidate for king would be.

Meh. It shows the rank hypocrisy of the system -- Democrats are all for massive spending when it's their pet projects being pushed, and vice versa; and both cry bloody murder about the deficit when it's the other side's pet project being pushed.

I think that's a false equivalency.

The Republicans brought deficit hawkery into the modern era starting in the '90s. If they hadn't made a huge issue out of this, we'd still be running the economy at somewhere around '90s tax levels. Somehow, the staggering economic growth we've been promised since 1994, or for that matter 1980 with voodoo economics, hasn't materialized.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are pushing stuff that has verifiable positive multiplier effects on the economy (e.g. education, e.g. infrastructure, e.g. single payer health care that hopefully brings our per capita health care expenses down into line with the rest of the world, so we can spend the money on other shit).

It's a lot easier to explain how spending a billion dollars on scholarships for poor kids of high academic merit is going to do good for the country in the long run than to explain how cutting a billion dollars in taxes for gazillionaires is going to do the same thing.

If the bill passes, though, it is not the end. It is the beginning. The repeal of this bill will be as much a rallying cry for the opposition in 2018, as the repeal of Obamacare was for the Right in 2010- and with far greater justification.

I'm aware of this. (Huh... perhaps being around here has calmed me down a bit, thanks folks! )

I'm certainly getting more engaged civically these days. This is the first time I've called my senators about something and I'm planning on supporting a candidate for my state governor. I actually feel less powerless when I do this stuff.

It warms my heart to hear you say this.

EDIT:

From the New York Times:

Mr. Corker had pushed to scale back the tax cuts in the Senate bill in the wakae of a report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation that projected the bill would add $1 trillion to deficits over the course of a decade, even after accounting for economic growth. On Thursday night, Republicans were discussing several possibilities for changing the bill to address deficit concerns, including gradually raising the corporate tax rate in later years.

But other Republicans resisted the idea of raising taxes, and on Friday, that idea was off the table.

"This is yet another tough vote. I am disappointed. I wanted to get to yes. But at the end of the day, I am not able to cast aside my fiscal concerns and vote for legislation that I believe, based on the information I currently have, could deepen the debt burden on future generations."

Y'know, I respect that. I think Senator Corker is worried about the wrong thing, but he's still opposed when other senators who stated similar objections had folded. It would be very easy for him to say "meh, going with it." He's going to piss off some of his own voters by continuing to say "no."

So I respect Senator Corker.

[Soontir C'boath]

One thing I've noticed is a subtle shift in tone in Left-wing discussions- no bickering over the primary, no "both parties are just as bad". Its all focused on the Republicans. I hope that lasts.

I hope this doesn't. If nothing is done about the current state of the Democratic Party, it will continue to lose. Much of the Democratic victories that happened this past election were due in large part the lack of association and help from the party. It's a tarnished brand and it's a boat that needs to be cleaned out and righted.

[Broomstick]

Fucking hell...

Senate Republicans have the votes to pass their tax plan

We're doomed.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh, I think Solarpunk is gradually learning to not think we're doomed every time something bad happens. He as much as said so earlier.

He's making progress. I for one think we should be patient and appreciative; these things take time.

[Terralthra]

From the New York Times:

Mr. Corker had pushed to scale back the tax cuts in the Senate bill in the wakae of a report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation that projected the bill would add $1 trillion to deficits over the course of a decade, even after accounting for economic growth. On Thursday night, Republicans were discussing several possibilities for changing the bill to address deficit concerns, including gradually raising the corporate tax rate in later years.

But other Republicans resisted the idea of raising taxes, and on Friday, that idea was off the table.

"This is yet another tough vote. I am disappointed. I wanted to get to yes. But at the end of the day, I am not able to cast aside my fiscal concerns and vote for legislation that I believe, based on the information I currently have, could deepen the debt burden on future generations."

Y'know, I respect that. I think Senator Corker is worried about the wrong thing, but he's still opposed when other senators who stated similar objections had folded. It would be very easy for him to say "meh, going with it." He's going to piss off some of his own voters by continuing to say "no."

So I respect Senator Corker.

It was a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit hole when Sen. Corker voted yes to move the bill out of committee. Had he voted no then, it wouldn't have gone to the floor. His convictions only mattered when his vote didn't.

[Simon_Jester]

Point.

Even in the most charitable case, where we stipulate he isn't purely posturing about the matter, that's well into behavior that a Republican worthy of more than a few fleeting scraps of respect once called "confused and stunned, like a duck that has been hit on the head..."

[SolarpunkFan]

Simon_Jester is correct, Broomstick. It turns out that getting shit done makes me feel better than just moping online all day.

[Broomstick]

Which is why full time work has been my salvation this past year....

I am actually very down about the recent shit coming out of Washington. Since I've been climbing out of the hole I landed in, and now only have to be responsible for myself, I should be OK (for certain values of OK) but these developments are going to be devastating for millions and will further contribute to converting the US into a third world shithole.

[The Romulan Republic]

One thing I've noticed is a subtle shift in tone in Left-wing discussions- no bickering over the primary, no "both parties are just as bad". Its all focused on the Republicans. I hope that lasts.

I hope this doesn't. If nothing is done about the current state of the Democratic Party, it will continue to lose. Much of the Democratic victories that happened this past election were due in large part the lack of association and help from the party. It's a tarnished brand and it's a boat that needs to be cleaned out and righted.

The time when you are facing an existential threat to both your social safety net and civil liberties is not the time for internal bickering. It is the time to stand united, and worry about hashing out your differences later.

And saying "If the Democratic Party continues not to do what I want, it will continue to loose", and then actively encouraging infighting and dissention that makes defeat more likely, strikes me as having a lot of potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The majority of the American people support Democratic policies, far more than Republican policies. Like the politicians who represent them, some of those voters are more moderate. Some are more progressive. But their are not enough moderates to win without the progressives- and not enough progressives to win without the moderates.

The results of last months' elections showed that their is real potential for a Blue wave next year. The only way we are guaranteed to loose, is if we expend our efforts on petty infighting, trying to purge the party of people who aren't good enough, rather than focusing on the people who are actively try to destroy everything that we stand for.

Edits: To be clear, I am NOT saying "The progressives/Bernie supporters should just shut up and get in line". I am saying "Both sides of that divide need to stop holding petty grudges or trying to marginalize the elements of the party that they don't completely agree with.

Basically- Let's take the government back, campaigning on broad principles that most of us agree on, like progressive taxation, preserving Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and protecting the freedom of the press and the legal equality of all Americans. Then we can argue about the specifics of exactly what vision that government is going to follow.

I'd much rather have that debate between Centrists and Progressives in an overwhelmingly Blue Congress, than between divided Centrists and Progressives, and a united Alt. Right that is hostile to our very existence.

[LadyTevar]

Fuckin' Capito voted GOP lockstep again. Fuckin' cunt couldn't remember to breathe if the GOP party line didn't remind her to.

[Soontir C'boath]

One thing I've noticed is a subtle shift in tone in Left-wing discussions- no bickering over the primary, no "both parties are just as bad". Its all focused on the Republicans. I hope that lasts.

I hope this doesn't. If nothing is done about the current state of the Democratic Party, it will continue to lose. Much of the Democratic victories that happened this past election were due in large part the lack of association and help from the party. It's a tarnished brand and it's a boat that needs to be cleaned out and righted.

The time when you are facing an existential threat to both your social safety net and civil liberties is not the time for internal bickering. It is the time to stand united, and worry about hashing out your differences later.

And saying "If the Democratic Party continues not to do what I want, it will continue to loose", and then actively encouraging infighting and dissention that makes defeat more likely, strikes me as having a lot of potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

*facepalm* The Democrats have lost hundreds of seats across the country for years and years with us kowtowing the line of a long failed strategy. You are asking us to stay the course and be the Titanic except we've already hit the iceberg and you're proposing to tell the crew to tie up the lifeboats, while people are trying to get the fuck off.

The majority of the American people support Democratic policies, far more than Republican policies. Like the politicians who represent them, some of those voters are more moderate. Some are more progressive. But their are not enough moderates to win without the progressives- and not enough progressives to win without the moderates.

Good thing Americans believe Democrats would actually be firm on Democratic policies instead of the double speak they continue to use while they fuck you over. Oh wait, people are disillusioned with the party and rightly so, but you want people to magically continue to vote for them.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz among other Democrats supports pay day Loan companies that fuck over the poor. Corey Booker among many other Senators voted to side with pharmaceutical companies to keep price gouging people. Are these the Democratic policies you speak of? If not, what do you think people are actually "infighting" about? Do you really think Independent voters (who don't necessarily think and know things like you) would find these officials really any better than Republicans to vote for when their insulin and epipen supply is on the line? No, of course not. The Democrats gave us Trump with their shit.

The results of last months' elections showed that their is real potential for a Blue wave next year. The only way we are guaranteed to loose, is if we expend our efforts on petty infighting, trying to purge the party of people who aren't good enough, rather than focusing on the people who are actively try to destroy everything that we stand for.

The results show that when they don't follow the same policy platform as the Democratic Party and actually and genuinely espouse progressive policies, they win in Republican heavy strongholds. And despite the fact that the party is willing to withhold funds because they are not corporate enough for their tastes.

The Democratic Establishment for all their "kind" words might as well be the same bullshit that Republicans shovel up their constituents ass. People (whether Democrats or Independents) don't want their bullshit anymore and until candidates are fielded that do not follow that, people will not be energized to vote for the Democrat because they will see it as against their own interests to do so.

What happened in 2016 should be a lesson that it's not going to be enough to offer empty platitude and vague promises while they promise Wall Street that everything will be ok (Hillary) and until the establishment Democrats change that strategy they will continue to lose more seats and will fall again to Trump.

[Caiaphas]

Ah, shoot.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -democrats

I think many Democrats and independent political observers are puzzled by the intensity with which Republicans are pursuing their tax cut. It’s not politically popular and may well lead to the party’s defeat in next year’s congressional elections. So why do it?

The answer is that Republicans are pushing the tax cut at breakneck speed precisely because they know they are probably going to lose next year and in 2020 as well. The tax cut, once enacted, however, will bind the hands of Democrats for years to come, forcing them to essentially follow a Republican agenda of deficit reduction and prevent any action on a positive Democratic program. The result will be a steady erosion of support for Democrats that will put Republicans back in power within a few election cycles.

The theory was laid out almost 30 years ago by two Swedish economists, Torsten Persson and Lars EO Svensson. In a densely written article for the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 1989, they explained why a stubborn conservative legislator would intentionally run a big budget deficit.
House Republicans pass major tax cut bill after Trump's closed-door speech
Read more

It has to do with what economists call time inconsistency – the consequences of actions taken today may not appear until the future, when a different political party will be in power. Thus the credit or blame will accrue to that party rather than the one that implemented the policy, because voters tend to attribute whatever is happening today to the party in power today even if that party had nothing to do with it.

Thus Barack Obama got blamed for a recession and resulting budget deficits he had nothing to do with originating. No matter how many times the Congressional Budget Office showed that the vast bulk of the budget deficits in his administration were baked in the cake the day he took office, Republicans nevertheless blamed him and his policies exclusively for those deficits.

Of course, another reason for those deficits is that Republicans systematically decimated the federal government’s revenue-raising capacity during the George W Bush administration with one huge tax cut after another. All of these were sold as necessary to get the economy growing again. The failure of the economy to respond positively was never taken as evidence of the failure of those tax cuts, but rather as showing the need for even more and bigger tax cuts.

By 2022, Republicans will be back in control of Congress and in the White House by 2024

The payoff for this orgy of tax-cutting came when Obama took office. All of a sudden, Republicans noticed that there were large deficits and insisted that Obama do something about them right this minute! They even made the nonsensical argument that spending cuts would stimulate growth by reducing the burden of government.

Democrats did a poor job of explaining how Franklin Roosevelt tried exactly that in 1937, slashing government spending because his treasury secretary told him it would restore business confidence. The result was a sharp downturn that raised unemployment, which had been trending down.

Obama’s hands were tied by the deficit hawks in his own party as well and prevented from offering an economic stimulus adequate to offset the loss of aggregate demand resulting from the great recession that began in December 2007 on Bush’s watch. Obama even joined with Republicans to slash spending in the 2011 budget deal and put in place budget controls that made it virtually impossible to pursue any positive Democratic initiatives for the balance of his presidency. No wonder Trump won.
Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news
Read more

I think Republicans remember better than Democrats the lesson of 1993 as well. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 on an activist agenda. But once in office, he was persuaded to reverse course and put all his efforts into deficit reduction. This transformation was spelled out in detail in Bob Woodward’s 1994 book, The Agenda. Its key element was a significant tax increase that every Republican in Congress voted against. They said it would crash the economy, but was instead followed by an economic boom. Unfortunately, the boom didn’t become apparent until after the 1994 election in which Democrats took heavy losses – in large part because of the tax increase. Republicans got control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Clinton remained beholden to the deficit hawks for his entire presidency, doing nothing with the vast budget surpluses that emerged and hoarding them like a modern day Midas, despite pressing economic needs and growing financial problems withsocial security and Medicare that those surpluses could have fixed. Clinton simply bequeathed them to Bush, who promptly dissipated them with tax cuts and a huge new spending program, Medicare Part D, not to mention wars in the Middle East that continue to this day.

I believe that the same cycle will rerun over the next few years. Should Democrats get control of the House and/or Senate next year, Trump and his party will insist that deficit reduction be the only order of business. Automatic spending cuts resulting directly from the tax cut will start to bite, hurting the poor and middle class primarily, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and making them forget that they resulted from a huge tax give-away to the wealthy that increased the deficit by $1.5tn. Democrats will get much of the blame due to time-inconsistency.

It’s possible that Trump’s appointees to the Federal Reserve may be so alarmed by the inflationary potential of the growing deficits that they will raise interest rates in response. This could trigger a recession that will be blamed on a Democratic president taking office in 2021, just as happened with Obama. But that president may not be able to enact any stimulus at all because deficits crowd out any fiscal space. By 2022, Republicans will be back in control of Congress and in the White House by 2024. In 2025, they will demand still more tax cuts.
The Resistance Now: activists plan to protest the Republican tax bill
Read more

Keep in mind that no matter how big the deficit gets from the tax cut Republicans are rushing to enact, none of them will ever vote to undo those cuts or raise taxes except, perhaps, in ways that further burden the poor, such as raising the gasoline tax. That is because they all signed a tax pledge promising never to raise taxes. Therefore, any deficit reduction will either consist solely of spending cuts or pass with only Democratic votes, as was the case in 1993.

The originator of the pledge, Grover Norquist, planned it this way. I doubt he has ever read Persson and Svensson, but understood intuitively that the tax pledge was guaranteed to ratchet down the size of government forever. It wouldn’t happen all at once, but over a period of decades. The history of fiscal policy since the pledge was originated in 1988 is, sadly, proof that it has worked exactly as he hoped.

The Democrats’ only hope is to defeat the tax cut in its entirety and not be seduced by Republican efforts to tilt it more in favor of the middle class. Once the deficit is programmed to increase by another $1.5tn the Republican trap will be set and Democrats will again be on the path to cleaning up their fiscal mess. Just say no to tax cuts is my advice.

Bruce Bartlett worked as an adviser for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush. His new book is The Truth Matters

[The Romulan Republic]

*facepalm* The Democrats have lost hundreds of seats across the country for years and years with us kowtowing the line of a long failed strategy. You are asking us to stay the course and be the Titanic except we've already hit the iceberg and you're proposing to tell the crew to tie up the lifeboats, while people are trying to get the fuck off.

This is not remotely what I am saying. I am not saying "stay the course", nor am I asking anyone to "kowtow". I am saying that we need to form a united front, with both Centrists and Progressives giving some ground. I explicitly stated this in my last post.

Honestly, I do not see how you can possibly have gotten to this conclusion from my post, unless you are a) deliberately misrepresenting me, or b) automatically dismiss anyone who does not agree completely with your position as the enemy.

This attitude is exactly what I was warning against- the single-minded insistence that the first priority should be to purge the party of anyone who doesn't think exactly like "us".

I repeat: Hard-line Progressives DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS to win against a system the Republicans have rigged without the Centre, any more than they have the numbers to win without progressives. You can demand ABSOLUTE PURITY over all else, purge the party, hell, form a Left-wing Tea party while you're at it, since the Republican one worked out so well for the country. And it will not save a single job, or a single law, or a single life.

Your lifeboat analogy is telling, though. You don't want to fix the Democratic Party- you want people to jump ship in droves, with nowhere to jump too. But at least they will be "pure" while they drown.

Good thing Americans believe Democrats would actually be firm on Democratic policies instead of the double speak they continue to use while they fuck you over. Oh wait, people are disillusioned with the party and rightly so, but you want people to magically continue to vote for them.

The results of the November elections, which you ignored above and continue to ignore, say otherwise. You are taking a relatively small group of hard-liners (many of whom are known to be Trumpers in sheeps' clothing, deliberately trying to drive a wedge in the opposition), and pretend that they represent the collective will of the people.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz among other Democrats supports pay day Loan companies that fuck over the poor. Corey Booker among many other Senators voted to side with pharmaceutical companies to keep price gouging people. Are these the Democratic policies you speak of? If not, what do you think people are "infighting" about? Do you really think Independent voters (who don't necessarily think and know things like you) would find these officials really any better than Republicans to vote for when their insulin and epipen supply is on the line?

No, of course not. The Democratic policies I am referring to are things like the ones I listed in my last post: preserving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; progressive taxation; ensuring the basic civil liberties of all Americans are protected. Things that nearly every Democrat supports, and nearly every Republican opposes.

Yesterday, the Republican Senate passed a Far Right wish-list that would undermine all of those things for the benefit of the wealthy. Nearly every Republican Senator voted for it. NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT DID.

If that doesn't convince you of what's at stake, then what the hell will?

The results show that when they don't follow the same policy platform as the Democratic Party and actually and genuinely espouse progressive policies, they win in Republican heavy strongholds. And despite the fact that the party is willing to withhold funds because they are not corporate enough for their tastes.

Eh, as I recall, the Virginia governorship candidate was considered fairly Centrist and their were concerns about Bernie or Bust crowd undermining him by splitting the vote.

It turned out that they were wrong.

That's not to say that Democrats shouldn't run Progressive candidates. They absolutely should. But I do not see any evidence that a Democrat must have a perfect Progressive record to be electable, nor would I refuse to vote for one who did not if it meant a Republican gaining the seat.

Again, we're talking about a potential self-fulfilling prophecy. Hard-line progressives say that Democrats who do not adhere to their views to your satisfaction cannot win, then try to undermine said Democrats to justify your pre-conclusions.

You don't get to actively sabotage something, and then blame it if it fails.

The Democratic Establishment for all their "kind" words might as well be the same bullshit that Republicans shovel up their constituents ass.

This is objectively false.

Again: Nearly every Republican voted for the tax bill. NOT ONE DEMOCRAT DID.

That is a fact. One you ignore so that you can trot out the tired, trite, mindless slogan that "both sides are just as bad". An assertion which is absolutely impossible to support except by cherry-picking the acts of select Democrats on select issues, and ignoring everything else.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the False Equivalency Narrative, which substitutes a simplistic generalization for nuanced analysis and stifles political discourse in favor of a cynical platitude, is the single most dangerous lie of our time.

It is also, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump is President. Because when all the politicians are "just as bad", as a matter of faith rather than fact, then it doesn't matter if a narcissistic rapist endorsed by the Klan is President, does it?

People (whether Democrats or Independents) don't want their bullshit anymore and until candidates are fielded that do not follow that, people will not be energized to vote for the Democrat because they will see it as against their own interests to do so.

What happened in 2016 should be a lesson that it's not going to be enough to offer empty platitude and vague promises while they promise Wall Street that everything will be ok (Hillary) and until the establishment Democrats change that strategy they will continue to lose more seats and will fall again to Trump.

Tell me honestly: Is there anything that the Democrats could do that would actually shift your opinion of them in the slightest? Because if you can honestly look at the results of last night and continue to reflexively insist that both parties are the same, then I very much doubt that there is. It is a matter of ideology that "the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans", and I honestly doubt that that would change even if they made Bernie Sanders DNC chair, had him personally draft their entire platform, let him hand-pick their candidates, and made every one of them take a loyalty oath to hard-line Progressive principles, on penalty of expulsion from the party.

And if you are unwilling to engage with any fact or any one that does not perfectly fit your views, then their is no point in continuing this conversation, other than to fuel the very divisions that I am criticizing. In which case, I strongly urge that we simply agree to disagree, and not discuss this subject any further. I've spent enough time pouring gasoline on the fire, thank you.

[Soontir C'boath]

*facepalm* The Democrats have lost hundreds of seats across the country for years and years with us kowtowing the line of a long failed strategy. You are asking us to stay the course and be the Titanic except we've already hit the iceberg and you're proposing to tell the crew to tie up the lifeboats, while people are trying to get the fuck off.

This is not remotely what I am saying. I am not saying "stay the course", nor am I asking anyone to "kowtow". I am saying that we need to form a united front, with both Centrists and Progressives giving some ground. I explicitly stated this in my last post.

Honestly, I do not see how you can possibly have gotten to this conclusion from my post, unless you are a) deliberately misrepresenting me, or b) automatically dismiss anyone who does not agree completely with your position as the enemy.

I was responding accordingly to this:

Its all focused on the Republicans.

Not my problem if you were actually the one that took it down the wrong direction after my reply.

This attitude is exactly what I was warning against- the single-minded insistence that the first priority should be to purge the party of anyone who doesn't think exactly like "us".

Er, dude. The voting populace as they showed back in 2016 showed what the people want. Which was, not Hillary and other establishment candidates.

I repeat: Hard-line Progressives DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS to win against a system the Republicans have rigged without the Centre, any more than they have the numbers to win without progressives. You can demand ABSOLUTE PURITY over all else, purge the party, hell, form a Left-wing Tea party while you're at it, since the Republican one worked out so well for the country. And it will not save a single job, or a single law, or a single life.

I am not demanding purity you dumbass. I am demanding a party that actually responds to the voters who will then actually vote for them.

Your lifeboat analogy is telling, though. You don't want to fix the Democratic Party- you want people to jump ship in droves, with nowhere to jump too. But at least they will be "pure" while they drown.

Are you in an idiot? My analogy is YOU withholding the life boats forcing people to jump and drown.

The results of the November elections, which you ignored above and continue to ignore, say otherwise. You are taking a relatively small group of hard-liners (many of whom are known to be Trumpers in sheeps' clothing, deliberately trying to drive a wedge in the opposition), and pretend that they represent the collective will of the people.

Holy shit, I don't even know what you are even talking about here, but I guess a progressives that ran are just Trumpkins in disguise. *roll eyes*

No, of course not. The Democratic policies I am referring to are things like the ones I listed in my last post: preserving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; progressive taxation; ensuring the basic civil liberties of all Americans are protected. Things that nearly every Democrat supports, and nearly every Republican opposes.

"No, of course not." Right, typical Democrat. Ignore the taint of the Democratic party as if it means nothing to other people. Unfortunately, it does and people do take those issues into account.

Yesterday, the Republican Senate passed a Far Right wish-list that would undermine all of those things for the benefit of the wealthy. Nearly every Republican Senator voted for it. NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT DID.

I will only say that I'm pretty sure there were two that actually did.

If that doesn't convince you of what's at stake, then what the hell will?

You're an idiot. The Democratic Party brought this all with their bullshit to begin with.

That's not to say that Democrats shouldn't run Progressive candidates. They absolutely should. But I do not see any evidence that a Democrat must have a perfect Progressive record to be electable, nor would I refuse to vote for one who did not if it meant a Republican gaining the seat.

Again, we're talking about a potential self-fulfilling prophecy. Hard-line progressives say that Democrats who do not adhere to their views to your satisfaction cannot win, then try to undermine said Democrats to justify your pre-conclusions.

You don't get to actively sabotage something, and then blame it if it fails.

Again, go fuck yourself with that "perfect" rhetoric. People want thing out of their candidate and when they vote in such way that they do not, how is this not any different than laughing and blaming Republicans for voting against their own interests?

Sod off with your idiocy.

Again: Nearly every Republican voted for the tax bill. NOT ONE DEMOCRAT DID.

And yet, how many bills have been passed with Democratic support that still fucked people over because their donors pressured them to do so? Sure it's better than Republicans, but we need to fight for something much better than the shitstorm the Democratic party has shifted into, and NO NOT TOWARDS SOMETHING FUCKING PERFECT EITHER YOU SHITSTAIN. That is a huge misrepresentation and you know it.

The question is, whether you realize the current Democratic Party is simply not good enough for what people need. You said it yourself people overwhelmingly polled that they want progressive policies, but the Democrats are simply not offering it and that's what you need to understand.

I am asking them to stop voting like a vintage Republican and actually vote like a Democrat again. Just because most voted down today's tax bill, STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THEY CONTINUE TO ENGENDER AT OTHER TIMES BY VOTING FOR THEIR BIG DOLLAR DONORS.