General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 47 members of Congressional Progressive Caucus won't promise not to cut Social Security and Medicare [View all]cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and I believe I'm in it with you. Republicans have a thirty-three seat majority in the House. The choice is either concessions and compromise or continuing stalemate. The consequences of continuing stalemate are easy to predict -- two more years like the last two years.
Which means we continue the endless, mindless, lurching from one crisis to the next. We continue to grant the House Republicans at least two more years to play their dangerous game of chicken. We continue to grant Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan outsized, prominent, positions on center stage and allow them to repeat their spurious and fallacious "arguments". We continue to have the people's business held hostage by the House Republicans. We continue to see our government funded by one "emergency appropriation bill" after another, which is a horrible way to do business and gives the Republicans great opportunities to create all sorts of mischief.
I believe there is a substantial risk in continuing in this manner. We could go back into recession. We could see all sorts of public good eroded and destroyed in these "devil's bargain" emergency appropriations bills.
(Note: I'm sure there are some people who might say, "how much worse could a recession be? It couldn't be worse than this." All I can say is, yes it can.)
I'm not diminishing the importance of reduced SS benefits to many people, but something has to be conceded or there will be no agreement, i.e. stalemate, with the consequences being as described above. I think that many members of the Progressive Caucus understand this, as difficult as it may be.