NYT: Obama's deal with the Republicans was not compromise, it was capitulation.

[Bluebear]

NYT Editorial
The Tax Cut Endgame

President Obama’s deal with the Republicans to extend all the Bush-era income tax cuts is a win for the Republicans and their strategy of obstructionism and a disappointing retreat by the White House...

On a decidedly sour note, Mr. Obama also said he had agreed to cut estate taxes even more than in the last year of the Bush administration. That is not compromise. It is capitulation.

The Republicans gave up very little except for their unconscionable stance of holding up all other Congressional action until they ensured that the richest Americans keep their tax cuts...

Mr. Obama said on Monday night that he still believed extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was a bad idea. He predicted that it would be undone in two years when it becomes apparent to everyone that the country can’t afford it. The president needs to ask himself why he couldn’t make that case now — and how he plans to change his approach to governing so he doesn’t get trapped this way again.

Mr. Obama also said that “we cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems.” Unfortunately, the Republicans felt no such compunction. He should have fought harder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/opinion/07tue1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=end%20game&st=cse

[BzaDem]

1. The idea that "fighting harder" would change Republican votes is laughable.

Republicans aren't just perfectly willing to let the country fail -- they WANT it to fail, so they can come in in 2013 and make the tax code flat (among many other things).

[glinda]

3. Republicans have put this President in this position really. They blatantly

push by having the numbers of votes and by all the Corporate money and Obama has to choose either to help the middle class and take their crap or let the middle class suffer. The rich will not suffer and Obama knows that. Yes he is pissed. At us and at them. Yes he should call them even louder on it. Yes we should be angry. It is time to fight. It is time to push Obama to put up his dukes.

[badtoworse]

10. That's baloney - we put ourselves in this position

The reason this is such a huge problem is because we didn't deal with it before the election. All the repub's have to do now is run out the clock and in January, we lose the House and some Senate seats. They will be in a much stronger bargaining position and will be that much more difficult to deal with.

Sorry, but those are the facts

[RobinA]

14. Let's See

if they are willing to have their fingerprints on the cutting off of unemployment. And no, I don't think they give two hoots about the unemployed. I do think it might be worth calling THEIR bluff for a change. They may not want to be known as the party who kicked a lot of unemployed voters to the curb. Let's let them reap what the sow.

[ljm2002]

8. The idea that "not fighting" would change anything is laughable...

...but I'm not laughing.

Basically what you are saying is that you must capitulate to uncompromising bullies or nothing good can happen at all. Where I come from, you stand up to uncompromising bullies and fight them and call their bluff and do everything in your power rather than cave to their demands. It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. You will NEVER change anything with these people, without a fight. NEVER.

I have had some experience in my life with bullies. In every case, I had to stand up to them to prevail. Now sometimes if it's a matter of survival, then you do what you have to do and that may include capitulation. But in general that is a bad idea, because you can never ever trust bullies to keep their promises anyway, and capitulation merely makes them despise you more than they do already. It is how they are wired.

We needed a fighter and we got someone who sees himself as a great negotiator. But he doesn't really negotiate, at least not in the usual meaning of the term. The first rule of negotiating is that you start negotiations from your preferred position, not from the middle. Obama starts from right of center, giving up good negotiating points before he even starts negotiating with the uncompromising bullies of the rabid right. Then he makes snide remarks about those on the left who bring up his lack of skill, or lack of conviction, or both.

I don't give a hoot about what the Republicans are perfectly willing to do. I do give a hoot about what my leaders are (or are not) willing to do. It appears that Obama is unwilling to fight for us. He could have gone to us first and railed against the Republicans. Hell, he could have met with the Democratic Caucus before making his deal with the Republicans. The fact that he did not do so is very telling IMO.

[Poboy]

2. recommend.

[Bluebear]

4. .

[Poboy]

5. up

[me b zola]

6. K&R

[gratuitous]

7. About all that's missing . . .

Is the Obama photo op, brandishing his proposal and intoning that it means "peace in our time."

[NNN0LHI]

9. NYT blows

They always have.

Don

[Bluebear]

11. Scintillating. nt

[ProSense]

12. New NYT editorial

Editorial

Voting for an Odious Tax Deal

Published: December 7, 2010

Liberal Democrats are in revolt at the tax deal that President Obama struck with Republicans on Monday, and it is not hard to understand why. By temporarily extending income tax breaks for the richest Americans, and cutting estate taxes for the ultrawealthy, the deal will redistribute billions of dollars from job creation to people who do not need the money.

But the Democrats should vote for this deal, because it is the only one they are going to get. Mr. Obama made that case — strongly — on Tuesday, summoning an eloquence that is often elusive, as it was on Monday when he first announced the deal. Without this bargain, income taxes on the middle class would rise. Unemployment insurance for millions of Americans would expire. And many other important tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers — including a 2 percent payroll tax cut and college tuition credits — would not be possible.

If angry Democrats blow up the deal, they will be left vainly groping for something better in a new Congress where they will have far less influence than they have now. The middle class and the unemployed would be seriously hurt.

The president, and particularly Congressional Democrats, might not be in this bind if they had fought harder against the high-end tax cuts before the midterm elections. But that moment has passed. The real responsibility for what’s wrong with the tax deal lies with Republicans. They coldly insisted on the high-end tax cuts at all costs, no matter the pain they might inflict further down the income ladder or what staggering cost they might impose in years to come.

more

[donheld]

13. I'll bet the White House had a little chat with NYTimes