The Compromise Is FULL TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

[KingOfLostSouls]

aaron schock just laid it out.


that's the compromise.

you know, everything republicans want.



and naturally, in the spirit of bipartisanship, the surrender is in.

[mediaman007]

1. Let's drop all of the tax cuts!

Pay our bills, so our children won't have to.

And while we're at it, lets end the support to farmers and oil companies. That will go a long way to cut the deficit.

[TBF]

2. Well of course it is - did you expect anything else? nt

[MadHound]

3. Don't worry, the Democrats will put up some semblance of a token fight,

Only to throw up their hands and cave at the first sign of opposition. Then your "compromise" will go into effect.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. I expected nothing less than full capitulation....

[Individualist]

13. +1

Capitulation is standard procedure for DLC/NDC.

[Skidmore]

5. And this is news, how?

That has always been what they wanted. It is their first bargaining position and their last, and is why the business community has been withholding job creation for the past year. Said that months ago in a post here. The other thing I have argued is that the manner in which this is being done is no different than a hostile takeover of a company...we are, after all, talking about the business world and its mavens and this is what they know. They coopted a political party and used it to take over a government. Now they sit at the table, not as a bunch of individual interest groups, but as BIG BIDNESS. Dems never learn and sit back and gasp in horror and sputter in outrage.

[DrDan]

11. they coopted "a" political party? I think it has gone beyond that.

[WinkyDink]

6. One-termer. End of story.

[Tansy_Gold]

7. And he has no one to blame but himself. No one.

he can't blame the GOP, because he's gone along with everything they wanted. He's far more "Republican" than even Bill Clinton ever was.

He can't blame the progressive left, because he's done nothing for them and there's no reason for them to continue to support him.


Sorry to say it, but what a wanker.




TG, NTY

[BzaDem]

15. "there's no reason for them to continue to support him"

So the progressive left has no reason to support Obama over whoever the Republicans nominate?

The progressive left thinks that a President Palin's policies would be better than Obama's policies?

:rofl:

[Tansy_Gold]

17. No, I think the real question should be

-- and please remember that I'm the one who wrote the screed saying that the progressive left DOES support Obama and DOESN'T want him to fail and WILL vote for him over just about any rightwing fruitcake --

Is there anything substantially -- substantially -- different from Obama's constant giving into the rightwing and, well, the rightwing?

We don't have Obama standing between us and the fruitloops -- we have Elizabeth Warren and, for a while at least, Nancy Pelosi.

Obama's policies are losing him his base of support. He can't win a second term without them. He's catering to the rightwing, and they aren't going to vote for him. Does this make sense to you? maybe not.

I don't want a Palin or a Paul or any of the loonies to get elected in 2012 or 2016 or ever. But Obama, if he wants a second term, is going to have to stop pursuing a right wing path. It's not even center right any more, and it's approaching far-right. That's Palin territory.

Oh, I forgot. He did sign an executive order that soup kitchens can't hold sermons during meals.



Tansy Gold, bitter and angry

[BzaDem]

14. Good luck with that.

The funny thing is, even if you succeed, you'll just come back running to elect Ben Nelson if he's our nominee in 2016. Eventually, people like you realize that Republicans are actually far worse than Democrats. The only question is how much pain and suffering you will have to endure under a Republican administration before you realize that. It's a question of when -- not if.

[City Lights]

8. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

:puke:

[Loge23]

9. A huge campaign bust.

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts was a defining theme, for me anyway, of Obama's campaign. That, health care (with public option, at least), and ending the folly in Afghanistan and Iraq were my hot buttons. If the tax cuts are extended another year (all indications say yes), this will be a trifecta of utter failures.
Add in yesterday's deficit-crushing pay freeze (for some employees):sarcasm: and you really have to wonder.
It's really very sad.
The right absolutely and unconditionally hates him and he has effectively alienated a significant portion of his support on the left.
What happened to this guy? Was it all a big lie?
Where do we go from here for 2012?

[whistler162]

10. actually they are going to increase the taxes on

people making less than 100,000 to 100% and decrease the taxes of those making greater than 100,000 to -100%.

THERE IT IS IN PRINT SO BELIEVE IT!

Could we maybe wait until they actual submit something to Congress to be voted on before going off on a poutrage!

[ellenfl]

12. if so, then they need to do this in the next congress. they ARE

smart enough to figure this out, right?

ellen fl

[gratuitous]

16. It is SO a compromise

Because the overrich didn't get more of a tax cut; they're just keeping the free ride they've had for the past 10 years, not getting another one on top of it. And let me tell you (actually, there will be alleged human beings on your teevee telling you) that it's really kind of unfair for the affluent, but they'll buck up because they love America so much.