The horns of a dilemma...

[brooklynite]

To those supporting the House Democrats opposing the Tax Policy/Unemployment Insurance agreement, two question:

1. It is clear that Republicans will not pass a tax bill without including tax cuts for the wealthy

2. It is also clear that Republicans will not allow DADT repeal to come up for a vote until the tax bill is passed

3. Come January 1, resolution of any unpassed issues will depend in part on Republican leadership in the House.

Question 1: if we allow the tax bill and DADT repeal to die in this Congress, why is there an assumption that a better outcome (or even the the same outcome) will be achievable next year?

Question 2: if there is -not- an assumption of a better deal next year, is it worth sacrificing what is achievable this year?

[MineralMan]

1. Nose. Face. Spite.

Recced.

[MineralMan]

2. Baby. Bathwater.

[daleanime]

3. I see no dilemma.....

did you think the next two years were going to be easy?

This is just the start of the fight and if we can't (or simply won't) resist this nation is doomed.

This bill (or act, or package, or what ever the hell it is) is like save a sinking ship by cutting a hole in the hull to let the water out.

Letting all the tax cut expire is by far the less painful option.


:banghead:

[brooklynite]

4. NO, but I think this year is going to be easier (admittedly not by much)

The bottom line is whether people on our side are willing to accept the loss of unemployment insurance and DADT.

[jwirr]

6. There are other things we are losing also: EIC credit, etc. I would

like to see Democrats add amendments to the bill for other things as well: energy assistance and other programs we want passed.

[bluethruandthru]

5. I don't understand why the unemployment insurance extension and

the tax cuts have to be tied together. Is there some rule that forces them to be in the same bill?

I think the republicans are afraid of voting against extending unemployment benefits - with nothing else attached to it - because they have lots of unemployed constituents..just like every politician does!
I say separate these very different issues and force the R's to defend their positions.