Did President Obama compromise too much in extending the Bush tax cuts to all, w

1. 69

   ExpandYourMindposted 14 years ago

   Did President Obama compromise too much in extending the Bush tax cuts to all, while continuing...
   
   unemployment benefits. Is there a better solution to satisfy all parties?

   replyreport
2. 72

   Abecedarianposted 14 years ago

   No and probably, but we'll never see it in our lifetime because both parties are bullheaded. Well I'll take some of that back.  The Dems are at least willing to work things out as they have continued to show. Can't say the same for the party of NO.

   replyreport
3. 59

   Petra Vlahposted 14 years ago

   The two parties rarely, if ever, agree on anything; it seems that more and more their “job” is to score points with each other and make political statements rather than solve problems.
   
   Extending the tax benefits for the rich was a way to ensure that millions of Americans will not lose their unemployment checks for a little longer. The compromise had strong opposition from both parties, but bickering while regular people are suffering the effect of a disastrous economy is what Congress does best.

   replyreport
4. 61

   Saranevadaposted 14 years ago

   Absolutely. Yes. A better solution is for everyone to give something in a compromise. Since GOP ran on deficit reduction, then GOP should be willing to impose taxes on those who are able to contribute more. The wealthy. Obama is giving away too much, too easily because he is not willing to make a case with actual numbers. The whole situation is ludicrous. If approved, the "compromise" will cost about 600 billion. That don't look like deficit reduction to me.

   replyreport
5. 80

   Wayne Brownposted 14 years ago

   You have to look at it from his perspective.  He must live with the Republican majority in the House for two more years.  He is not going to be making too many deals after Jan 1 from a position of power.  He is looking at this situation as his best offer knowing that he has kept it at a "temporary extension" as opposed to a permanent tax cut.   After January, his ability to keep it temporary is likely gone.  At the same time, the went he has gone about it is diametrically opposed to the way in which has spoke highly of both Reid and Pelosi the the past months.  There is no teamwork here...its every man for himself or herself for that matter.  Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are made of that fabric...they don't really have any friends they have not already taken advantage of in the past.  It's dog eat dog even in the Democratic Party.  The unfortunate side is that the average Democrat has not yet figured out that their party has gone south in beliefs, direction, etc.  Get out of the boat while you can and save yourself! WB

   replyreport
6. 70

   Freeway Flyerposted 14 years ago

   By nature, Obama gravitates toward compromise. Those who believe that he is a strongly ideological liberal are buying into a conservative-generated caricature. By showing his willingness to compromise, he might actually win a political battle for a change. They were engaged in a game of chicken, and Obama backed off first. The Republicans, if this compromise actually holds, look like they were willing to allow all tax cuts to expire in order to protect those for upper income Americans. Obama ends up looking like the guy who was willing to compromise in order to protect the majority. In this case, I think that many independents, the only voters that really matter, are going to view his actions in a positive light.
   
   In my mind, both parties are, as always, being fiscally irresponsible. Because we are still struggling economically, I can somewhat tolerate some more irresponsibility, but only temporarily. The question is whether they will finally raise some taxes and cut spending when the economic situation improves. Personally, I doubt that this will happen. Both parties are afraid of asking the American people to sacrifice.

   replyreport
7. 61

   JasonPTposted 14 years ago

   Obama has no balls.  He had promised and vowed to get rid of the Bush Tax cuts, now he's not.  It's not a compromise, it's a spineless backdown from what he promised to do.  The deficit is going to go through the roof now.

   replyreport
8. 60

   weholdthesetruthsposted 14 years ago

   I noticed that someone made a reference to "tax benefits for the rich".   I'm sorry, but how is a tax a "benefit"?   No level of taxation is a benefit to anyone.   No 'lost revenue' has occurred, since none of the people's money belongs to the government.  It's OUR money, not theirs.   
   
   No, Obama didn't "compromise" too much, and in fact, no "compromise" is going to be adequate.  The only way anything will be accomplished good in Washington DC, is if everything Obama has done is undone, and a huge lot more, as well.   The nation is bankrupted due to too much government and too much taxation and redistribution and too many mandates and too much regulation and far too much meddling by ignorant politicians.   
   
   Our nation was designed to prevent politicians from being able to mess with the economy and people's lives for a purpose, and that is to defend the people from the havoc that  runaway government ALWAYS causes.

   replyreport
9. 59

   GetFitRightposted 13 years ago

   How many jobs do you think would be cut if the taxes went back up? There are a lot of small businesses even big no corporations that would suffer and have to lay people off to survive. Even corporations right now are laying people off or cutting hours and closing branches down. It is not the tax payers fault that the economy is in such a bad position and that the government is spending millions printing new money and making errors that we have to pay for as well as paying our congress too much money to follow their own agendas how about we cut back congresses paycheck to pay for our deficit.

   replyreport