Are you prepared to trade tax cuts for progressive policy legislation?

[Loki Liesmith]

Just curious if we have divided government going forward: would you give Republican lawmakers tax cuts for the wealthy if we could get a public option to the ACA or meaningful climate legislation

[Demsrule86]

1. Yes.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. absolutely

[Phoenix61]

3. Absolutely not. All those wonderful progressive

programs require funding.

[Loki Liesmith]

5. Do they though?

So far huge deficits don’t seem to be causing inflation

[Phoenix61]

7. Not at the moment but they will. It's inevitable. nt

[Loki Liesmith]

19. Inevitable means between now and the heat death of the universe

There’s a big difference between inflationary spirals in 5 years vs. 20 years

[Buckeye_Democrat]

4. Sure, but it likely wouldn't work.

The Republicans would squawk that this country can't afford the progressive programs because of the growing debt, so they'd need to be cut. (Never cutting the military or other bloated expenditures.)

[Loki Liesmith]

6. Fair

[Buckeye_Democrat]

8. The progressive programs would need to be...

... "lock boxed" (as Al Gore might say) to prevent Republicans and Libertarians from killing them.

[Firestorm49]

9. How do you plan on getting the money to better fund and fortify the public option?

The key to solving a great many problems is to get the wealthy and stinking rich banks and corporations to pay their FAIR SHARE. Then, you can better discuss health care, infrastructure, climate issues, etc.

In my opinion, first, get the money flowing back to where it’s needed. Turn the money over to the states to administer it, and let Joe handle McConnell however he sees fit.

[Klaralven]

12. The US already spends 17% of GDP on healthcare, 4 percentage points more than second-place Switzerla

The key to healthcare reform is to move the spending around to more effective uses and to reducing overhead costs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/

[EndlessWire]

24. Yes. FAIR SHARE. n/t

[irisblue]

10. Why is this a binary choice?

[crickets]

13. It isn't. nt

[Loki Liesmith]

21. Well I'm interested in assessing priorities

[Baked Potato]

11. Sure, give the rich more tax cuts right along with Democrats getting healthcare and climate.

The rich get their short term goal of more cash and Democrats get their long term goal of social spending and environment. Just keep debt and deficit talk out of the equation.

[notinkansas]

14. Nope.

The Bush and trump tax cuts should be rescinded. There's your funding!

[In It to Win It]

15. If we have divided government, it'll be time to get the deficit under control

No expensive progressive legislation will be tolerated

[lettucebe]

16. No, that's silly. It's the non-taxed that are the cause of our lopsided unfair system

How exactly do we pay for anything unless we remove the earlier tax cuts for the wealthy? I'd never trust them to keep their side of the bargain anyway, so I vote absolutely no.

[Loki Liesmith]

17. Why pay for it at all?

[MissMillie]

18. tax CUTS? no....

But I'd be willing to talk tax INCENTIVES

[Doremus]

20. MORE than we've already given them?

I think we have a lot of catching up to do before we put tax cuts for billionaires back on the table.

[Hortensis]

22. No. It won't be necessary, and the corrupt GOP's transfers of our national

wealth to the wealthy have to be reversed. A president going around the senate is NOT the way it's supposed to work, but if we don't get the GA seats Biden will when he feels it's necessary, and McConnell will get nothing he wants without paying the people's piper.

Please note what Pelosi said below. The danger is very real and it has to be done. We have the will and the grave existential need. We've lacked only the power.

[WyattKansas]

23. NO... The wealthy NEED to begin paying back all their IOUs deposited in the Trust Funds FIRST!

ALL the IOUs that were prior decades of tax cuts for the wealthy. Then we need to roll back income tax rates/laws back to the 1950s to reset the massive failures the Republican Party has infected the United States with. Very simple... 92% top tax rate and if you don't want to pay that much, then you must invest it back into the economy providing jobs in the United States or investing it into a trust fund set aside to only benefit the American People. Income tax rates would actually go down for the lower and middle classes and States would get back to funding from the U.S. Government, since the Republican bait & switch regressive tricks would no longer be in place.

[Loki Liesmith]

26. Good luck

[WyattKansas]

38. That is because Americans have been brainwashed with the capitialism is the savior for all mantra...

And were tricked into trading pensions for 401Ks and financial portfolios to shift their saving to the roulette table at Wall Street. Uh huh, works out great to excellent for some, but at the expense and detriment to the rest of the population.

Yet in this day and age, America claims to be the most enlightened and intelligent ever? What did we learn about the crash in 1929? Hmm... Something about unregulated capitalism, which is the Vulture Capitalism we live in today?... Oh that right! We did learn how to solve that self defeating problem and explode our economy at the same time to lift everyone up. For people to not recognize that the 'Company Store' has now become the 'Corporate Government Store' is pathetic and self defeating, which nothing meaningful will ever change until that is recognized and remedied.

History and records do not lie, but capitalists do who are selling something... That is also why Republicans went to end game strategy, because their cons became more twisted and bizarre to keep selling their unregulated Vulture Capitalism.

[Voltaire2]

25. That deal won't happen.

[uponit7771]

27. Yes, for the middle class of course

[JI7]

28. Why do you assume Republicans would support This ?

[dsc]

29. Actually I would but I doubt the GOP would

but Trump of all people showed us the way on this. Biden should declare an emergency due to COVID and divert defense money to fund a public option. If he can do it for the wall we can for health care.

[we can do it]

30. What tax cut?

[eShirl]

31. How is that going to work?

[Loki Liesmith]

33. Some Republicans really like tax cuts

[ProfessorGAC]

32. No

Tax cuts on those more than 3x the median household income can be mathematically proven to have no positive net impact on the macroeconomy, absent massive additional borrowing. (See 1981 to 1990)
And, cuts on more than 2x median income are not beneficial unless the economy is in full recession. Even then, the effect is temporary. (See 2003 to 2008)
So, tax cuts require borrowing to have any effect, deficits become a political hammer for the Rs, any near term added spending on MFA or UHC, as less entrenched spending, becomes the first target for reductions.
Then, to survive the deficit complaints, tax increases become part of the conversation. That's another political hammer for the Rs.
It's a path with no assured endpoint. It's a bargain that doesn't result in win/win.

[Loki Liesmith]

34. A rational argument

Although I don’t necessarily agree with the premises (i.e. that deficits are a particularly effective rhetorical hammer). Or that it matters that tax cuts are ineffective in producing growth (likely true but they are a political tool, not a policy tool)

[ProfessorGAC]

37. Why Would We Want To Be Party...

...to any policy that we know doesn't work. What political advantage does that provide? That dems are not tax maniacs? Politics doesn't require detail, we just say "The very rich aren't paying enough. They're the problem, not you Mr or Ms Average American!"
I understand the way compromise works, but more cuts on business or the very rich will have a deleterious economic effect, only ameliorated by more debt.
And, I'm not sure how you don't agree that deficits are a rhetorical hammer.
The entire basis of the 43 fiscal philosophy was the Norquistian "drown the government". 43 got reelected. Cutting services to reduce deficits sold. Shouldn't have, but did.
On Edit: How about this? Agree to a substantial tax cut for those under $200k, as a couple, but it comes with increases for the much more affluent. Then, add in a public option in exchange for moderating the tax increase on the most affluent.
The middle class tax cuts are politically popular, the Rs get to claim they got that, we get the public option & the revenue increases from higher taxes on multimillion dollar incomes.

[Vivienne235729]

35. NOOOOO. The wealthy needs to pay their fair share

Bc if they do, it will fund our progressive programs.

[Amishman]

36. Yes, depending on the details

And in general we're going to have to get back to this type of trade-offs to get anything done.