Reply #21: Because he did not compromise on the Bush (now Obama) Tax Cuts for the Rich? [View All]

[panzerfaust]

Actually, I suppose I should be happy, for the extension will personally save me thousands of dollars in taxes.

The thing is, though I certainly do not want to pay more taxes, I do think that progressive taxation is just - and that, the tax rates of the Clinton era were pretty fair. Though it would have cost me a lot out of my pocket, I was hoping that the current Bush/Obama tax cuts for the rich would have been allowed to expire.

I say that Obama did not compromise on the tax cuts, because 'compromise' means that each party gives up something. As best I can tell, the only thing the Republicans gave up was that the tax cuts were not made permanent - but only being extended for 2 more years when the next president, likely a Republican, will make them permanent.

This slight delay in permanence was made more palatable to the Republicans by Obama's wholly embracing the Republican 'reform' of inheritance taxes.

The president tells us that this craven retreat “... isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with, ‘What can we get done right now?’” Not having drunk the Kool-Aide I fail to discern the distinction. Indeed, to my aging brain, the one would seem to be the definition of the other.