http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed "He has no fixed principles," Nader said, of Mr. Obama. "He's opportunistic -- he goes for expedience, like Clinton. Some call him temperamentally conflict-averse. If you want to be harsher, you say he has no principles and he's opportunistic." "He's a con man," Nader continued. "I have no use for him."
While I wish Obama showed more starch on the tax issue, there is something to be said for his not having chosen to score political points on the backs of the American people, as the Right is apt to do. How is Obama to negotiate with a political party that is just a drop of the hat away from going scorched earth on you? ("Unless the rich get theirs, the middle class and the unemployed get nothing." Even though the rich had been doing most of the getting during the Bush years, during which time the socioeconomic divide had widened to unprecedented levels.) Yes, I do wish he played chicken better, but it's always easier to say than to do when the stakes are high. Nader is no less starry-eyed than his Far Right wing counterparts. He would rather score political points, to hell with the collateral damage, than compromise, which is tantamount to defeat in the eyes of an ideologue. Not unlike the average Republican, just from the other side. Yes, I do wish Obama held his ground longer and better, and showed some more starch. But it must be hard to do when the other side simply doesn't give a shit about consequences. Consider playing chicken with a suicide bomber fueled by ideology.
Odumbo is a "Leftist Radical/Communist"... he conned his way into the White House by LYING ABOUT EVERY THING UNDER THE SUN. The hoi polloi had "hope" and bought his bullshit lies... now we're all sorry, fretting and gnashing for the day when he is not longer in office so that the bleeding might be stopped... all along hoping that the damage he has caused will somehow not be permanent...
I think Obama did just fine with this compromise. I think the rich already pay more than their fair share of taxes. "Households in the top 1 percent for annual income (those earning more than $352,900) paid a healthy 28.1 percent of all federal taxes" http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68094
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html "In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figuresâshare of income and share of taxes paidâwere their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes." does that sound fair?