.
December 8th, 2010
05:45 PM ET

Tax cut deal damage Pres. Obama's reelection chances?

ALT TEXT
(PHOTO CREDIT: AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

By making the tax cut deal with Republicans this week, President Obama may be sealing his own fate in 2012.

Some Democrats say that agreeing to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts – even for the wealthiest Americans – will cripple the president's chances of being re-elected.

For starters, the president has angered the Democratic base. The left wing of the Democratic Party is furious that he's refused to fight the GOP. Some think it would have been better to let all of the tax cuts expire rather than to roll over for the Republicans.

And, many Democratic lawmakers say they're shocked at the size and price tag of this deal. Some estimates top $900 billion. So much for deficit reduction.

Plus, by agreeing to a two-year extension, it guarantees that the debate over the Bush tax cuts will be raging once again just in time for the 2012 presidential campaign.

If the economy improves, the Democrats will be in a better position to argue for ending the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. However, that's a big gamble.

Speaking of gambling, the Daily Beast has a piece called "Obama's Lousy Bluffing Skills," in which they examine the president's poker habits and how they may have predicted his negotiating style.

Obama's former poker buddies describe him as a "very cautious" and "conservative" player who rarely won, or lost, big.

They say the president wasn't much of a bluffer and didn't call opponents on a bluff unless he had a strong hand.

Interesting when you consider poker is all about reading people and showing strength in order to get a desired outcome.

Here’s my question to you: Did President Obama damage his reelection chances by making the tax cut deal with Republicans?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Carla writes:
It hurts his chances with this Democrat. Has anyone checked to see if the Republican Party contributed heavily to the Obama campaign? I have to ask because they're sure benefitting from his presidency. Obama would make a terrific Republican. He failed at the health care plan he promised. Now, he's helping the wealthy Republicans stay wealthy, while stomping on the poor and middle class he promised to help.

Joe writes:
No, he didn't. You know why? Because for a voter money talks, especially the money that won't be taken out for taxes after December. Let's be honest: the rich will always have money and that money will be used on tax attorneys to avoid paying taxes at full price anyway. He saved the middle class from having to pay more taxes. That will be his ace in the hole for the future.

Mar in Tampa, Florida writes:
He will never get my vote again. Hillary would have made a better president because she has more "stones" than Obama will ever have.

Cary writes:
It was a sucker bet. Don't do the deal and average Americans feel the pinch. Do the deal and the Republicans claim a victory and get to look good for their real base, the rich. Average Americans should be outraged that the Republicans were holding the tax breaks hostage until they extended to the rich but they aren't.

Dawn writes:
I hope so! Obviously, the president doesn't know anything about negotiation or compromise. Compromise is not backing down until the other side has even more than they originally wanted. Notice not one Republican is objecting to this deal? In a true compromise, some on both sides would be objecting. As a Democrat who voted for this man, I am very disappointed.

Steve writes:
If Palin wins the nomination, then I'll vote for Obama. If Romney is the candidate, then I, and many other Democrats, will stay home. Obama has minimal leadership skills. He should have stayed in the Senate and learned how politicians operate. Right now, he looks like a Class C rookie hitting against Sandy Koufax.

John writes:
I think that two years is a long time. His hands were tied on this one. What will matter for the president is the economy (jobs). I believe the American people need to "believe versus hope". In short, investments to create new jobs will come when corporations and businesses "believe" the economy is back on solid ground. Not a good idea to bet on "hope".

Eden writes:
I've been a big supporter of Obama, but now even I'm feeling exasperated with him. He needs to man up and stop being so willing to compromise. He's like the lawyer who settles every case so he won't ever have to go to trial.


Filed under: 2012 Election • President Barack Obama • Republicans • Taxes
soundoff (135 Responses)
  1. Guntown Johnny

    You don't pay for tax cuts. It's an opportunity cost ("price tag in this instance) of doing one thing (approving them) vs. doing another (not doing them). The opportunity cost, or pricetag I guess, is whether or not they result in more/less revenues. This is the Democrat way of characterizing anything that cuts taxes.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  2. Jeff In Minnesota

    Only with the far left wing of the Democratic party. The moderate Democrats and Republicans know that we need to get the Republicans off of the dime so that we can move on to other business. Not that I agree with everything in this proposal, but that's what compromising is all about. It's not like the discussion is completely done, but it is done for now and we need to move on to the next problem and we'll come back to this one.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  3. Danny Cali

    No, Tax cut deal with Republican is not bad for Obama 2012 at all because Republican Hostage Americans people and President Obama just rescued them only.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  4. Daniel, from Omaha

    I think he did the right thing. This is what people, like my boss, need to hire more people and get the company growing again. I did not vote for him the first time, but if he keeps this up and the economy grows. I will vote for him a second time.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  5. Ray, Norfolk

    If I was the President Obama, I would not even care to run again. American does not seems to be worth the headache. How can American vote back in the Republicans who screwed up the economy. Now they expect the President with out support from the spineless Democrats to stand and fight the GOP. People Please. American needs Pres. Obama, but does not respect him. Who give a stink about 2012.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  6. Maddog

    2012? He's lucky if he isn't impeached before the next election.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  7. Arnold MI

    President Obama did a good job trying to keep his campaign promises until he returned from his Christmas vacation in Hawaii last year. Ever since then he has reversed himself of most of his issues. Why? Is he buckling down to the right winged pressure? Has his affluent buddies persuaded him into doing things his way? Did someone fine tune him in Hawaii? In my opinion the President has damaged himself since Christmas 2009 and his only hope for re-election is the economy improving before the 2012 elections.

    If someone runs against him in the primaries I may support his opponent, otherwise, I will have to once again vote for the lessor of the two evils.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  8. Giver

    The GREEDY REPUBLICANS are the ones who should be worried about 2012! I can't believe that people can't see how selfish the rich Republicans are and how the Republican politicians are mouth feeding the4 rich! They call themselves "patriots", what a joke! If these spoiled brats were "patriots" they would be more concerned about their country and the American peiople than their pocketbooks!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  9. Francis

    I think this tax deal will work out good for the president come 2012. The economy can only go up and any movement in the positive direction is a credit to the president. The problem he will have is the base of his party deserting him. Although I do not see that possible, it will spell disaster for him if the base of his party decides to look some where else for a presidential candidate.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  10. Steve

    The only reason I will vote for Obama is to keep a Republican out. I have lost all faith in Obama. He is just another wimpy Democrat. The only way to fight Republicans is to take it to the people and plead your case and not give up until you convince the masses you are right. To a Republican, "compromise" means agreeing to everything they want.

    I am furious!!!!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  11. Sarah

    My question is where were all these angry Democrats in November? It is clear that the President is doing what the majority of those who actually went to vote want. The Democratic leadership has positioned itself against the President in many other occasions, and now they pretend they are so appalled... They should learn to stick to their President first.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  12. fidogump

    I am a life-long Democrat and this was the last straw. He sold us down the river. Why would he think the Republicans will be agreeable 2 years from now? He should have put it on them to do the right thing. I am on Social Security and people like me didn't get a thing, not even a lousy $250 while millionaires rake in the money. He lost my vote.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  13. Richard

    Obama has just about ensured that Sarah Palin will be the next president. The people that supported him in 08 will sit the next election out. He might get a few independent voters and the votes of the loyal Democrats but that's about it.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  14. Jake

    He better not run, or it will be definately be a republican winner. He has no backbone and has folded his hand everytime!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  15. Frustrated Californian tired of the rhetoric

    I am so sick of the rhetoric on tax cuts for the wealthy. The top wage earners in this country already pay the majority of the taxes. Here are the IRS Statistics from the US Treasure Department web site.

    Top 1 percent -- pay 33.7 percent
    Top 5 percent -- pay 53.8 percent
    Top 10 percent -- pay 65.7 percent
    Top 25 percent -- pay 83.9 percent
    Top 50 percent -- pay 96.5 percent

    The bottom 50 percent of wage earners in this country only pay 3.5% of all the taxes. The top 5% pay 53.8% of all taxes but only contribute 30.6% of the total income.
    Now who really is paying a disproportionate amount of the taxes in this country already. Enough with the lies!!!!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  16. Eddie

    Had he not made this deal, nothing would be happening, and still isn't.
    If the Blue Dogs wanted to slam a better deal through, assuming they could, why haven't they? They have had all year to push a tax bill and have not acted. It is the Congress that passes bills, not the president. As the President has said, they are holding desparate jobless Americans hostage, and they will end up in gridlock.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  17. Jack

    I'm and independent moderate, voted for President Obama, and have supported him since. He's lost me on this one, completely rolling over for the Republicans who complain about the deficit after running it up for 10 years. This was a battle tailor made for building popular opinion which is clearly (in my opinion) against this giveaway to the wealthy. Make the Republican's push for this and against the unemployment compensation extension, don't give them an early $900 billion xmas present without a fight!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  18. TheNewYorker67

    I hope the right wing republicans that he is fighting so hard for will vote for him.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  19. Scott Wagers

    No, I don't think he's hurt his chances of reelection. I happen to agree with him on this deal. Yes, it's a big price tag...and the Republicans own that price tag. This will hurt the GOP much more than Obama in the long term.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
  20. Greg in Mechanicsburg

    If Hillary runs, she's got my vote this time. She's got the kind of spunk we need in the office.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  21. Larry Axelrod

    Large deficits pump-prime the economy and may improve it in the short-terrm, which will help Obama's reelelction chances in 2012, just as the large deficits helped George Bush. But this spending spree just creates more debt for our children. Better to have no tax bill at all and return to the Clinton tax schedule, which produced a surplus.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  22. Robby Bowling

    Only with the political elite that mostly live in Washington DC , New York and California. Most of us do not live in that world. He never had my vote anyway.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  23. Mike

    I very much doubt the president has damaged his reelection chances with this compromise: the election is still two years away, and if I may be a bit cynical about it, the voting public as a whole has the attention span of a fruit fly.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  24. Chris, Bronx, NY

    Jack,
    As a moderate DEM, and a realist. I've said it before and I'll say it again: President Obama is the only adult in D.C. and increasingly in his party.
    Before his two years are up, even you jack will be saying that, once again.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  25. Ron

    Do not think this has changed his ability to be reelected. As I think that has already been determined as fat chance at this point. Think the defecit is so high and the only reason he was elected originally is that americans had enough of Bush Administration and wanted a change as well as the posibility of having Sarah Palin in the White House

    December 8, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
  26. Jane (Minnesota)

    Time will tell, I imagine. Overall I pretty disappointed in the President and I voted for him. I'm not too thrilled with his performance (or that of Congress either-both sides). It's sad to me to see how the elected officials in Washington can first give large companies incentives for outsourcing millions of jobs from this country and then not make any attempt to assist those millions of displaced workers to retrain them or try harder to encourage new jobs just disgusts me. How on earth can there be so much disdain and no feelings for the "99ers".

    December 8, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
  27. stephen syta, Boston, MA

    Jack: Now that the Republicans know that all they have to do is threaten filibuster to get what they want, we might as well have a Republican president and I'll bet dollars to donuts that we do in 2012.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
  28. Ivonne

    as a member of the working class I appreciate our president choosing us, the working people, over the political pissing game that the Republicans like to play when it comes to issues that have to do with us and not the top 2%. I do believe he needed to yield in order for the rest of the country to move forward and not backwards. I think time will tell whether this proves to be a good thing for his re election but as far as I am concerned, I will remember that he fought for us. It's disgusts me that the republicans were willing to cut off unemployment, willing to allow us on top of that, to pay higher taxes and pretty much throw us under the bus while they fight so passionately for the top 2%....That, I will also remember and I am an independent voter.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
  29. Hank

    Obama did something very presidential - he worked with Republicans, who happen to be fellow Americans. This puts the ball in the Republicans court. Will they see him as "caving" and "weak?" Perhaps, if you listen to comments by Newt Gingrich. He doesn't seem to mind if standing for common folks makes him a one-term president. He's acting on his convictions (jobless people are hurting). As far as angering the Democratic base? Why worry about that? What's to lose? Obama is a great president.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  30. Renee Peoria,Ill

    At this point I don't think anyone questions that Obama will be a one-term President. The only question is why has he been working so hard toward that goal? I'm starting to think he might be a secret Republican.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  31. CORTNEY DANIEL BONNER

    Absolutely not! I say this because the American people are sick and terribly tired of watching these senseless brawls between a stubborn old elephants and mules. The American people don't give a hoot about principals when they have no jobs, no money and no idea what the hell is going on in Washington. In my opinion, its too much cinema and not enough enema on the hill. It appears as if President Obama is the man in the middle who understands that the U.S. Government is constipated and is just as stagnant as its economy.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  32. Fredie C.

    I don't think he wants to run Jack, who would want to deal with this spineless government that is totally unable to deal with its citizen problems. If you the option to be the 1st black ex-president and being financially set for life, not to mention being home at 5 pm every night. Or run again to be the president of toddlers.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  33. Mark Morgan, Andover MA

    Frustrated in California.

    No wonder they pay the most taxes. They make the most money and own almost all of the wealth. We have diven the rich and the poor further apart than any time in the last 100 years. Trickle down economics is a joke.

    If you look at the wealth statistics, you will realize that the rich pay less than their fair share. Ask Warren Buffet.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  34. Robert

    Absolutely not. If anything he's provided a debatable topic (high income tax cuts) which, when he argues against, will get more democrats on his side. I'd also like to mention that looking back on this time from 2012, people are likely to realize that this was a smart compromise and hopefully the begining of successful bipartisanship.

    New York

    December 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  35. Scott

    If the President is willing to put the welfare of the average citizen above his reelection it makes him a very rare politician, one that I admire and will vote for.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  36. Bruce Eder

    He lost me a long time before this - the only question for this voter is, do I abandon the rest of the Democratic Party along with the ditherer-in-chief? If they capitulate on this, I don't see the purpose of continuing to vote for any of them, and they can go the way of the Whig Party.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  37. Bill

    Hell Yea! I'm a supporter of Barock, and he wants to reward the scum that put us in this position, and not even mention the 99ers. He'll have a problem with me! Bill

    December 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  38. John Kelly

    Who cares? Isn't it about time we had a politician make a decision based on what they believe is best for their constituents instead of what is most likely to get them re-elected?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  39. terry

    As an recipent of Unemployment Compensation since my factory DANA Heavy Axle Corporation sent my department to Mexico. It has been tough trying to make it each and everyday providing for my family. I rather not get another check if it means getting the rich a tax break as if they really need it. This has been and disappointing move by the President and will affect the future elections.

    Please mention my former factory

    December 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  40. Dustin Howell

    Why is the leftist media attacking Obama instead of calling the republicans out on holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in exchange for tax cuts for the rich that we can't afford? Weeks after campaigning on fiscal responsibly? I can't believe we are actually encouraging the political preening that we have been speaking out against for years.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  41. Herb - Tampa, FL

    No! Instead of continuing to attack Obama every day, why don't you ask why there hasn't been a peep out of the Tea Party about the increase in the deficit and debt created by the GOP refusing to end tax cuts for the wealthy. Candidates and speakers for the Tea Party were interviewed daily before the election and now nothing, Nada, zip, zero!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  42. James Roland

    I have been wondering why anyone would think that extending the bush tax cuts would help the economy or help create jobs. The bush tax cuts have been there for the wealthy already, and look at the economy, no jobs! I feel for the people on unemployment. I myself draw partial unemployment, and my brother has been unemployed for a couple years now. I would have thought that Pres. Obama would have just let them expire as he promised. I voted for him in the last election, but wont next time. I will not vote for anyone who lies to me.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  43. CHUCK WILLIAMS

    No it won't. Whether you agree with the proposal or not, Obama got them talking and something is going to get done. The Democrats were waiting out the clock on tax cuts while Unemployment Benefits lapsed. All these clowns bitching about Obama giving away the farm should have spent half that energy getting a bill passed that would make it through the Senate before the Republicans took over the House in January. Stop asking the Executive Branch to do your job and then complaining about their performance!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  44. Randy in TX

    Hell yes! Tax cuts for the rich alone cost ¾ of a trillion dollars, but increase that pitiful stimulus ¾ of a trillion dollars to help All Americans, no that did not happen because it cost too much. Time for the rich to suck it up, including rich Democratic Obama donors.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  45. David Reaux

    President Obama damaged his chances with me. I don't see how he can recover from this at a time of reelection. The tapes of him promising to eliminate the the Bush tax cuts will be shown over and over two years from now and he wont be able to overcome the fact that it did not happen,

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  46. Crystal

    As a Democrat I am disgusted by this man. And I voted for him! Wish I could take it back. He wants all of the perks and NONE of the work.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  47. Remo, from beautiful downtown Pflugerville Texas

    He had a chance for re-election?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  48. James

    Jack,

    Score one for the Republicans! They successfully manuevered the President into a corner. He could only keep his "non new taxes" promise by compromising, or "dealing," with the loyal opposition. In my opinion, this is the first "adult" thing the President has done. In the interest of full disclosure though, I never have nor do ever intend to worship at "the Temple of Obama." I would never vote him.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  49. Frank Voytek

    Yes, and, in addition, he played right into the hands of the Republican snare. Early next year, the Republican's will try to reduce the budget by attacking and stripping entitlement programs, social security and medicare, for sure, as a way of appeasing the Tea Party. This will further hurt the middle class, causing further divisions among classes as well as the Democratic base. The Democrats may want to jump on the McConnell bankwagon and ensure President Obama is a one-term President.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  50. Jacqueline Mongeot

    I do not think he has damaged his chance for reelection in 2 years because of this deal. GOP is led by tough, unforgiving people. Yes, it is a compromise that can be altered if Congress stay cool. They could suggest a 2 years extension on the tax cuts for those who earn $500.000 for instance, or whatever amount is appropriate – and no extension above that income. They may also find another solution to minimize the loss at this moment. I am confident that President Obama examined all options and chose the best solution.
    Jacqueline San Diego CA

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  51. Mark -- Chicago

    The jury is still out. If the stimulative impact of "Obama's compromise" is significant and unemployment decreases a couple of percentage points, he may help himself in 2012. Adding to the deficit (almost $1billion) is however very damaging to our country. Presumably (I know I am being naive here) the President and Congress put the country first. Clearly, the Republicans have put the wealthy and politics first. I am not sure what Obama's strategy is. He is the pragmatist - perhaps this is the best he could get?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  52. Don Kern

    President Obama increased his chances of re-election. The package of proposals, including the tax cuts will probably help to stimulate the economy, which is good news for the President. The fact that he has finally shown a desire to compromise sits well with everyone except his liberal base, a vast minority of the voting public. But who can they possibly put forward as a candidate in 2012 that would have any, repeat any, chance of winning the election, or other than the President. They just can't be that dumb, can they?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  53. Mary

    President Obama may not have been put in the position to negotiate with the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans if the Democrats in the house and senate had the courage to vote on them before the November elections. It seems that President Obama has the courage to risk not getting reelected by doing what he feels is best for the American people at this time. Maybe the Democrats who had the majority in both houses should have done the same.
    Long Island, NY

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  54. Ming Wong, Rocky Hill, CT

    If this were a football game, it is only halftime. Going for a big play at this stage is nothing more than bravado. Taking a big risk will not win you the game but it can certainly lose it for you. President Obama made the right move. Two years is a long time. If the economy recovers during this period, he will be reelected and the tax deal would be a non issue.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  55. John in Deptford NJ

    ..Am I Happy with this "Deal"...NO Way! Am I Happy with Obama..No......Would I Vote for a Republican over Obama in 2012...NO,NO,No...no how,No way..Never gonna happen

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  56. Stephanie

    If Obama caves on the tax cuts for the rich, but gets a meaningful clean energy bill and education bill in the next two years, this whole thing will blow over and liberals will be in love with him all over again. But what worries us liberals is that Obama has not been pushing back against Republican demands, and this atrocious tax "compromise" may indicate that he doesn't have what it takes to ever push back.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  57. Carl (Texas)

    I'm a Democrat and I believe Obama made the best possible deal under the circumstances. I can't believe the Congressional Democrats is acting such a fool. The Republicans may take the White House in 2012 but it will not be Obama's fault. It will be the ununified Democrats in Congress. At least one good thing about the Republicans I can say is that they stick together even if it's the wrong way they are leading the country.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  58. Jeff

    No matter the commentary he won this round. He got more than he gave up, and in 2 years he gets the credit if it works, or he can blame the Republicans for it if it doesn't. Talk about lack of bluff all you want, but he just dealt himself a heck of a hand.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  59. Chris

    Yes, yes, yes, and 1000 times over yes!! I am a Liberal to the bone and I am soooooo disgusted by this. Even worse than the tax deal ending Obama's Presidency is the people who will be left to run the joint when he is shillacked out of the White House. The same people who put us into this mess and just weaseled a deal out of the White House that adds 800 billion more to our debt. Jack to put it bluntly Obama and the rest of this country is screwed!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  60. Birddog in Mississippi

    I would rather negotiate with a rock than with the GOP. This doesn't have anything to do with Obama's 'poker game'. It has to do with the fact that Republicans don't care what they do to the country. They really just don't care. And in this case, they are holding all the cards. All they have to do is do nothing and the tax cuts expire – which essentially raises taxes on the middle class by about $3000. Allowing that to happen would be terribly irresponsible – but the Republicans are always irresponsible – you can't be responsible and vote to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency. So the President had to be the adult and give them the tax cuts for the rich to protect the middle class.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  61. Mark Morgan, Andover MA

    Stunned

    I am stunned by the lack of anger towards the Republicans. They seriously wanted to deny relief to out of work persons and give the tax break to the >$250,000. Why is the anger towards Obama?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  62. Gary Vrchoticky Sun City AZ.

    This President is the worst Democratic president since Carter, but he is the best Republican president since Reagan. He could not get re-elected if he were the only canidate on the ballot. He is totaly gutless and has no idea how to fight and win. His motto is now
    NO WE CAN'T.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
  63. jim

    Did Obama damage his chances for re-election, certainly. But what about all those Republicans that ran on stopping our run away debt. It appears that keeping their own money is much more important than slowing down the impending bankruptcy they keep saying is inevitable.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
  64. Kojo Asensu

    He has guranteed his failure for 2012 for sure.
    1) You cannot say in 2012 i was against the tax cuts before i was for it ( watch out for those ads in his own words played by the republicans
    2) it was cuts for $250K or more now cuts for $1MM or more
    3) How does he splainf 2yrs tax cut extension and 13months unemployements, why not 2yrs for all. message to unemloyed you are worth 13months.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
  65. Bill Sparrow

    The Democratic left might be encouraged to field a challenger to Mr. Obama, but in all likelyhood, the President will win the nomination and the left will have no choice but to support him. The Republican strategy since the election was to simply block every piece of Obama legislation, good or bad. With changing demographics the Republican Party will have to reinvent itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
  66. C.H.

    I may have not voted for Obama, but it is clear that he is the only one in Washington who is looking out for the American people. Everyone else is so worried about winning an argument, they completely forget about what is BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY.

    C.H.
    Texas

    December 8, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
  67. Francine - Illinois

    I can't for the life of me understand why so many people are angry that a certain class of people can't keep more of what THEY have worked for. It's NOT the governments money!!!!! Yet the Dems are outraged that they can't get their hands on more money that doesn't belong to them in order to misappropriate the funds anyway!!!!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
  68. Alie

    His Excellency Pres. Obama has not damage his re-election chance.
    Indeed, Pres. Obama continues to vigorously fight for the little guys whose voice has been muted in Washington for the past two decades. In the end, His efforts to lend a voice to the voiceless will be judge accordingly come 2012!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
  69. Gonzarelli Doelman

    Jack,
    President Obama did what he had to do in order to extend the benefits of the unemployed in this country (over 2 million Americans). In addition, he compromised to get the middle and lower class their tax cuts–unfortunately! The republican party of "NO" is not for middle-class America, most certainly not for the "Poor".

    This year! I pray for republicans to experience in the coming years what the poor and unemployed is experiencing today. These guys are worth very little. Shame!

    Thanks.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
  70. Richard/New Hampshire

    No Jack, Obama was only acting in a realistic/pragmatic fashion. If the Dems had made a better showing at the midterms, maybe he would not of been in his present situation.
    The good thing about deferring both extensions is that it will be an election issue for both parties. Yes, Obama may have lost this skirmish, but I believe that he will win the war, especially when you look at the issues which benefit the middle class that are in his proposed agreement. Besides, If the dems want to modify it, they can-if they think they can muster the votes.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
  71. Suzy

    I hope not, Jack. It should point out that the Republicans are not interested in helping the middle class, but favor the rich. Pres. Obama
    was right in saying that he could not win on what he wanted otherwise. Just hope this doesn't give the tea partiers more power in 22012. Everyone wants lower taxes but we have to be realistic when it comes to our deficit. If the Dems don't agree with this compromise we all may lose.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  72. Chris -Denver CO

    Yes, yes, yes, and 1000 times over yes!! I am a Liberal to the bone and I am soooooo disgusted by this. Even worse than the tax deal ending Obama's Presidency is the people who will be left to run the joint when he is shillacked out of the White House. The same people who put us into this mess and just weaseled a deal out of the White House that adds 800 billion more to our debt. Jack to put it bluntly Obama and the rest of this country is toast!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  73. Nina

    The GOP is basically holding American's hostage in regards to extending unemployment; therefore, President Obama either negotiated with the GOP or many thousands of Americans would have no income while our (so called elected officials) from Congress Convenes for their “Happy Holidays”. I call that outrageous!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  74. Ted McMurry

    Since I believe Independants/Moderates elect all Presidents, then it would stand to reason Obama has increased his odds for re-election. However it may not be as important as who the Republcans nonmenate to run against him.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  75. Nancy

    I am more likely to vote for Obama in 2012 after this tax compromise. Taxes stifle growth. Punishing those who perform well and rewarding less productive people does not incentivize growth.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  76. Maggy

    I am a Liberal Dem and supporter of the President and I support this deal. It is the best thing for the country. This is also great for the President politically. Moderates/Independents ( and most people I think) want to see movement in DC and compromise is the only way. The "professional left" nneds to shut up!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  77. Elidude

    I won't vote for him again if he can't find people smart enough to get him a better agreement. He got rolled.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  78. Paula from AZ

    The idea that Dems will support a Repubilcan or just stay home in a Presidental election is just noise. In fact I think his numbers will go up with independents over this. Obama is acting like an adult and working with Republicans for whats best for the country. I loved his anger yesterday. There is no perfect.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  79. Connie Taylor

    I'm so MAD.....Where is our leader ...that was gonna stand
    up and fight????
    The GOP wins again!!!

    December 8, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  80. Suleyman

    I don't think he did jack. This was politics versus reality . Most democrats who are backing away from this deal are simply afraid of not being re-elected in 2012. Jack how fast do we forget. The midterm elections were a clear proof of this. Most democrats were trying to run away from the new health care law. Politicians do this all the time and pretend as if they're serving the interest of the people. Some talk of the president picking a fight with the republicans, what are the chances of winning this fight? the collateral damage will be the citizens of this country. Both Republicans and Democrats. However, i suppose Republicans will have to defend their second version of the bailout, after what was past under the former president.
    Manchester, NH

    December 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  81. scott

    Jack,

    Everyone knows the Republicans will never vote for tax increases again. When the economy is bad, they claim you cannot raise them during a recession and when things are going well, they argue raises taxes will hurt the recovery. This will be their claim in 2012. Despite the fact that the Bush tax cuts have miserably failed to help the economy or create jobs, cutting taxes has become an article of religious faith to them. The first President Bush did the responsible thing by raising taxes, as did Bill Clinton. It is the only time anyone has balanced the budget in 40 years.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  82. Spads

    The President damages his chances for reelection because he tries to make deals with Republicans. You cannot deal with the party of “NO”. The Republican party has long given up compromise. It’s time Democrats stop speaking to republicans entirely. We need to elect Democrats that completely ignore the republican party as if it never existed.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  83. Joan Evans

    I think the President is thinking about what is best for the low and middle income people, particularly those losing their unemployment rather than getting relelected. What a new concept for someone in politics.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  84. Craig

    Jack:
    It will be difficult for the Republicans to argue against Pres. Obama in 2012 as per this agreement, taxes were not raised. I also think that it will be difficult for the Republicans to argue against the Democrats regarding the budget deficit issue since they were not willing to even discuss the upper income tax bracket issue. President Obama's issue for 2012 is will the economy be showing any signs of life. If not, he will struggle to be re-elected, unless the Republicans nominate someone way off base like Palin.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  85. Dave Holmes

    Let's see. Most folks agree that because of the huge national debt, either taxes need to be increased or spending must be cut. What plan did the Republicans and the President come up with? It cuts taxes AND increases spending. Wow, I just do not get it. Yeah, I would say the President's credibility is very damaged.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  86. Joe in Kent Island, MD

    I'm sorry to say, but I have all but given up on the president. This is yet another promise delayed or given up on. He entered the White House with a large majority behind him, he'll enter the 2012 election with nearly no group believing in him. I hope he will pull out of this downward spiral, but he seems incapable of a real fight. "Hillary 2012!"

    December 8, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
  87. Jim Blevins

    He probably improved his chance of re-election, but did long term damage to the country. America's "patricians" seem to have convinced the majority of the "plebeians" that their interests are best for the country in the last election. A knock down - drag out fight over tax cuts for the rich would almost certainly allow most people to realize that that isn't true. This two class society caused our current economic problems and will do the same in the future. Getting everyone to carry their fair share is more important than the current recession. But giving in as he did will certainly improve Obama's re-election chances.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    December 8, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
  88. David Powell

    Would a real Democrat please mount a primary challenge to this woefully inept president?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  89. Ray in Knoxville

    Yes it has, Jack. This man was elected to change the way things have been done in Washington over the past 30 years and here he is making a deal that gives the rich the same sweet deal that his immediate predecessor did. I understand his need to spend all that money to save our economy. I understand his need to step up our efforts in Afghanistan. This move is simply caving in to the right.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  90. Jon F - San Francisco, California

    This tax deal is actually more consistent with Democratic platform issues than is is with the Republicans. Less than a third of that $900B has to do with tax cuts for over $250K earners and the estate tax. Most of the benefit of this deal was for middle class families and the jobless – a fact that Obama is keenly aware of. If the Democrats are angry with him then they are not being reasonable. Politics always consists of compromises. If gridlock forced the Bush cuts to expire at the end of the year, then everyone would be upset.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  91. Harold Gilliam

    I feel betrayed by the actions of Pres. Obama . I voted for him because i thought that he would be a fighter against such things .I guess when he became rich his views changed . I like compromise as do we all but come on where does he fight for us who voted for him. His negotiating skills are lackluster at best you never start by giving away to republicans who will take all they can get without giving up something they hold dear as well .He needs to start throwing some elbows instead of taking them. I feel he has become a lapdog to special intrests and the Gop. So I will not be voting for him come next election Unless I see some real fortitude and backbone. Thanks for the time to air my anger

    December 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
  92. Elie Laroche

    The president chances of reelection will not be damaged due this compromise. As a matter of fact he stands to be a winner if in fact this stimulates job creation as advocated by the republicans. If we run in a double recession, the republicans will suffer since this was a "do or die" position (trickle down theory).

    December 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
  93. mike

    If the concern was for jobless benefits to get an extention then I understand the presidents position. Congress should have negotiated for the threshold of 3.5 million on the estates tax and 35% tax rate for those over.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  94. Ken

    Obama's move in regards to extending the Bush Tax Cuts, was actually very strategic.

    If the economy improves by the 2012 election, then Obama will get all of the praise, and will be regarded as a Bipartisan President, that has the foresight to truly lead us.

    If the economy doesn't improve by the 2012 election, Obama will have a very good platform to run on against the Republicans, as it was the Republicans that forced Obama to approve the Bush Tax Cuts, or cause everyone's taxes to go up in January, and allow 2 million people to lose their Unemployment Benefits during the most festive time of the year.

    In either case, Obama has made a great strategic move that puts him in a very advantageous position for reelection in 2012.

    Sometimes, what seems madness, is actually sheer genius.

    We'll find out in 2012.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  95. Ken in NC

    He did not damage his chances of reelection. He eliminated them.
    Hillary in 2012.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  96. Marilyn Hougton

    No way will Obama get elected again. He just doesn't get it that Republicans want to starve the government of money so that they can do away with Social Security and Medicare. The wealthy are laughing all the way to the bank as he well knew when he was campaigning, but now he knows where that campaign money comes from. Members of Congress want to keep those tax cuts for themselves, too. What a mess! How in the world will we ever pay off the deficit. Evidently members of Congress no longer care about that.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  97. Anthony McCray

    I think he was softer than a soft shell taco the way he just let the GOP bully him to exstend the Bush tax cuts I would love to play the president at a game poker before I don't vote for him in the next term we he needs us.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  98. Braden

    Which US President cut taxes and did not get reelected?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  99. Gonzarelli

    President Obama did the honorable while the republican fools did the dishonorable. It will cost the republicans much more in the 2012 elections.
    Thanks.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  100. Jay Graves

    Jack, President Obama just won re-election with this agreement,He's the smartest man too ever hold the
    office of President.This don't hurt people that stand in
    need right now.Something the republicans don't
    understand is that the rich do creat jobs, just not in
    the USA so they are just making thing worst for people
    in the Great USA.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:34 pm |
  101. david

    Like many Americans, I have great concerns regarding the deficit, concerns that are easily heightened when I hear these first reports about the costs of the new 'Obama-Republicans' deal. But, when I allow myself to not give into fear and anger, for just a moment ... I can't help but consider the possibility that I may not be getting the entire story. Why is it that no one ever talks about how the economic development, that could result from this 'stimulus', may offset (or even entirely pay back) the costs of this plan? Should not this possibility be a part of the argument? Or is this extra layer of information thought to be too much for a public growing ever accustomed to simple minded discourse. Let's take it up a notch, guys.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  102. Langston

    The President damaged his reelection chances when he stroked his pen to approve the bailout of corporate America. He has made it clear with his tax deal and bailout package who's interests he is safeguarding, the top 2%. The people suffering overwhelmingly (middle class) will just have to continue waiting on the "change" that was clearly abandoned.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  103. js007

    YES he did! The ONLY thing Republicans care about are tax cuts for their rich buddies, so he should have used this to get all of his most important priorities pased (like START, DADT, and climate change). Instead, he gave away the farm for a few scraps.

    Now that the GOP has the rich tax cuts, the next two years will be about blocking anything Obama wants to do or even trying to impeach him. As for his base, who will believe him any more when he says he'll stand up to the Republicans in 2013? Who will canvass for him?

    He has 2 years to prove he owns a spine, but he has no leverage left so I don't really see how he can. The only way he gets re-elected is if a moron like Palin gets nominated for the GOP ticket.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  104. Nancy, Tennessee

    President Obama may be trying to tell us he is trying to live up to his campaign promises, but I'm not buying it. He has sold out to the Republicans on every promise. No public option in healthcare reform and now the wealthiest Americans get huge tax breaks continued. What a deal for the Republicans! Who knew President Obama was a "blue dog" Democrat.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  105. Mike

    Let's hope so.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  106. David Guzman in kingsville tx

    Jack,
    The president’s chances of getting reelected are still yet to be determined. The President’s decision about the tax cut deal is just like folding a hand in poker sometimes you have to play the game smart. The presidents stance on the tax cut deal stems from avoiding any risk that could arise to our weak economy, thus the President’s decision is justified.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  107. stacib

    I won't vote for him again.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  108. Randy in TX

    Fair would be to remove the tax cap. Since every single cent I make as middle class is taxed, tax every cent the rich make. This is simple “class warfare” by the rich on the rest of America.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  109. Kyle from Vermont

    I hope a primary challenger will step forward for 2012. This tax deal is a lousy short term boost to our long term problems, and I don’t understand why the president is agreeing to ease the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans of our generation. They’re the ones who outsourced the current and future generations of the middle class?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  110. Dunnel

    President Obama did not hurt his chances of re-election with the Republican Tax Bill Compromise. What our President did was put aside politics and help millions of unemployed Americans support their families that no other means of support !!!!! Thank you Mr. President. The unemployed can not wait another week to pay their rent and feed their families while the Democrats fight with the Republicans.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  111. Marcelo - San Jose CA

    Obama seems to be the only adult in a room full of children. He took the higher road and negotiated to get something passed so that people who are already hurting don't have to pay more while they wait for the kids to learn to play nice to together. It's a sign of great leadership. Those who think differently are probably playing sides only because of their allegiance to their party...not America.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  112. James from Denver, CO

    Jack:
    No.
    Before the elections so many people complained about neither side cooperating with the other. Now the elections are over and survey says the country wants some bipartisanship. Since we finally have that now it's absolutely insane that people are bashing this now. Yes it has provisions that both sides don't like but that's how you get a COMPROMISE! You find common ground, build from there and concede fairly to each side.
    Obama and Congress are finally doing the right thing.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  113. Pancho

    Absolutely not! "Some" Dems have to understand that the President has to make tough decisions that will not appeal to few today, but that for tomorrow it will be the best decision for all. This tax cut was a choice that had to be made for only two more years. If it will make compromise with Republicans, and yet create more equalibrium in Washington rather than non-sense, then I'm all for it.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  114. D Brown New York

    I think it will make him stronger. The president is like a prize fighter with one hand tied behind his back. The republicans turned to terrorist tactics and took americans hostage. The president stood on his promise to not make only political decisions, but also decisions that will help all americans. It's things like this thay make people ahamed of america at times

    December 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
  115. Sue (Delray Beach FL) Texas Ex here

    The only way he will lose is if anyone that voted in 2008 sits out the up coming election. We will have to make a choice in 2012, keep social security and medicare with the dems or keep tax cuts for the wealthy for the republicans. I am worried about how Republicans will deal with the deficit.....I know in Florida, my new state, we worked hard not to elect a "Lets privatize social security" senator but, that is what the seniors in this state voted for in Rubio....I am moving by the way.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  116. Sarah M

    Yes He will never get my vote again.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  117. Byron

    I don't think he did. I have never seen so many republicans opposed to an issue. If the president dosen't get reelected he has the right to blame the republicans because they resisted at every turn on every issue. How is that doing you job republicans? Your job is to come to a "MUTUAL AGREEMENT" with the democratic party on laws and bills in a interest for all people. If I was the president those republicans that vote no on every bill or issue because I'm not adressing the issue they want to talk about I would dock there pay. It's like throwing a temper tantrum literally that what they are doing. I say if you can't do your job for the common good of the taxpayers then go find another job.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
  118. Ann from Charleston SC

    Not with me. Quite the opposite. The reason I voted for him in the first place was because he talked about ending the gridlock in Washington. The Republicans look bad by refusing to give up the tax break for the wealthy. The Democrats look bad for whining about the deal. Obama looks like the only adult in the crowd.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
  119. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    Does it really matter, what matters is that he is willing to put this crippling absolutism that is called ideology or principle aside and begin to get something accomplished....together.

    I am one who would like to see all tax cuts expire as America will never get debt free by spending cuts alone, that is the stark reality, however I'd vote for Obama tomorrow because of his courage and will to do the right thing for the people no matter his personal consequences.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
  120. Larry B Minneapolis

    As an independent voter, I see this compromise as a breath of fresh air. It is nice to see the President follow through one time with his promise of bipartisanship. Now, the ball is in the Republicans' court.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  121. Dan

    Yes it will haunt him in 2012. I, for one, will be voting for any Democratic challenger in the next primary. At this point I believe Obama is a Republican in Democrat drag.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  122. Randy

    Yes. By agreeing to the compromise, Obama has stolen from Democrats the ability to claim that Republicans are hypocritical when it comes to decreasing the national deficit. An argument of this type would have likely resonated amongst the average American (and more importantly independents) who don’t earn $250k per year. Come 2012 Americans won’t care that Republicans were the ones who wanted the upper-class tax cuts. They will just remember that Obama increased the national debt by X amount of dollars during his presidency, including the increased debt from the tax cuts. The Dems would have been better off if Obama fought Republicans on the terms that middle-class tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits were being held hostage by the GOP.

    -Phoenixville, PA

    December 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  123. Allan, Fenton, MO

    Maybe President Obama sees that most Americans believe in the fairness of including everyone when we decide to maintain the 8 year status quo on income tax rates – even though he doesn't feel that way himself. Why dump the bill for Congress's reckless spending on only one class of earners – the most successful ones? Eventually there'll be pain to be felt for that reckless spending, and fair-minded Americans will understand that the pain should be spread equally, whether President Obama feels that way or not.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  124. mr. tortisitis

    If the US continues on this same course for the next two years only a person with half a brain would want to be President. Oh wait a minute, Palin would finally be the best fit for the job.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  125. Jim

    He's only damaged if a left wing member of his party challenges him for the 2012 nomination. Even if the left don't like him, who else are they going to vote for in 2012? If he's still their standard bearer for the general elction, they'll vote for him. No one who's angered by tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is going to vote repulican.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  126. Jack

    Two years is a long time. Many things can happen between now and then. If the economy improves, Obama has a good chance of being re-elected. If things worsen he will have a tougher time getting re-elected. Remember what Bill Clinton's campaign said? "It's the economy, stupid." Still holds true.

    Jack - New York City

    December 8, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
  127. Kathie

    I expected to have a president who would lead not cave into just about every demand by the opposite party without any debate. He gives in prior to any discussion. This is NOT leadership or change. All Obama is doing is continuing the same failed policies of the previous 8 years. Obama doesn't get it–he is upset that we are upset with giving in to the other party. Why doesn't he just change parties?

    December 8, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
  128. Scott

    I admired him for this and I am not mad at him, I am upset with both parties and he is compromising to help the American people who like I am still out of work, I supported Republicans for a long time but I might vote for Obama next elections.... only time will tell

    December 8, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
  129. joan cancilla

    you better believe he ruined his chances for 2012, what did the gop promise him if he went along with them ,there are so many things to be settled yet , the gop does not care about the poor or seniors what happened about the voteing on the 250.00 the seniors were suppose to get ,you know oboma should change to a republican because he sure acts like one , you won,t see me voteing any more to hell with them all they are all gready for money the more they get the more they wan ( republicanc)

    December 8, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  130. Jeff from Milwaukee, WI

    Not very good at negotiating is he? It is a very bad deal. The Republicans would have conceded on nearly everything to assure that tax cut remained in place for their rich supporters. I would prefer a stronger candidate in 2012.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  131. RJ

    It may have hurt his chances with the liberal base, but any losses there will be made up by gains amongst independents and moderates like me who base our votes on the candidates' merits and not their party affiliation.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  132. Penney

    I will never vote for a Republican. They are greedy, stuffed dogs who don't care about the unemployed suffering Americans. Read Charles Dickens book "The Tale of Two Cities". Where is the GUILIOTINE.?That is what will happen if the Rich keeps getting richer, and the poor, poorer. Mark my word.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:55 pm |
  133. h4x354x0r

    No, this is good for Obama. It totally distances him from the Dems (Pelosi, Reid) that are so thoroughly reviled by the right. It might be entertaining to see him throw those two under the bus for re-election.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:56 pm |
  134. Osilama Abu from Canada

    The easiest thing to do these days is to criticize.Before blaming Obama what of those chicken hearted Democrats in the senate who joined Republicans to vote against the bill proposals on taxes in the senate,do they get a pass?Obama has a larger society to look after,he has to take decisions and at this moment he took a smart decision that borders on peoples livelihoods even though it is a better political pill for his party to swallow.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
  135. Jack

    I didn't vote him but I will now. He reminds me of those brave soldiers that have given their lives for our country. President Obama probably sacrificed his (political) life for the good of our country in making this decision. Negotiating with the Republicans was a totally selfless act in my opinion. History will be the judge on this one, the Republicans will be high-fiving themselves over keeping the tax cuts for the rich but will have a tough time explaining themselves in 2 years during the next election cycle.

    December 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm |