REALLY - what the frack will 0-bummer have to offer in 2012, other than Palin is a right wing nut job?

For my own part, I think this deal is awful, and I would comfortably prefer to let all of the tax cuts expire. I couldn't even begin to consider this deal unless the Defense authorization bill were passed unmodified, Republicans agreed to offset the cost of the tax cuts by implementing a public health insurance option, and all as-yet-unconfirmed judicial nominees were given a up-or-down vote.

Trillions to millionaires and pennies for everyone else.  2 years of bush taxes in exchanges for 1 year of unemployment benefits.

According to dday (bold is mine):

Senior Administration officials tried to cast their deal on the Bush tax cuts in a positive light, even as forces on the left and right were mobilizing against it. The deal is so shaky that the White House officials and the President would only call it a "framework." Several Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate are already either simply opposed, or dedicated to mobilizing for defeat of the package, and the Senate Majority leader delivered a terse one-line statement only agreeing to discuss it with his colleagues. The biggest news here is that this deal isn't done.

Just to outline this framework: under the deal, the Bush tax cuts for all rate levels would be extended for two years. The estate tax, in a monstrous deal, will be lowered from 2009 levels, with a $5 million dollar exemption and a 35% rate, for two years as well. And, the deal adds what is now an annual patch to the alternative minimum class so it doesn't hit people in the middle class. In exchange, extended unemployment benefits between 26 and 99 weeks will be continued for 13 months, to the end of December 2011 (costing around $65 billion). A trio of tax cuts from the stimulus - the advanced Earned Income Tax Credit, the child tax credit, and the tuition tax credit known as the "American Opportunity Tax Credit," would be extended, I believe for a year, at a cost of $40 billion. A new tax cut, an employee-side payroll tax cut of 2% (out of the 6.2% that employees pay), would be in place in 2011, at a cost of $120 billion dollars. A senior administration official responded to my question by saying that would be paid for out of general revenue through a credit, and so would not impact Social Security and Medicare finances in any way. And, there are an array of business tax credits in the deal, including two that the President noted in September - bonus depreciation allowing businesses to write off at 100% the cost of new investments, and the R&D tax credit. Senior officials punted when asked if assurances for votes on other agenda items, like new START and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, were included in the deal.

I guess that last part translates to, "[W]hat?  you expected us to actually get something for our conciliatory outreach?"

This "deal" is absolutely AWFUL...900 billion for the millionaires and 220 billion for working class people (the FORMER Democratic base).  And this reduces the deficit by...oh wait, it doesn't. sorry.

UGH

Does Obama think we'll forget this gift to the wealthy and agree to the sacrifices suggested by the cat food commission?  

There really is no other way to say it: the Republicans won, the liberal Democrats lost, and the president sided with the Republicans. The subject, of course, is an agreement to extend all the Bust tax cuts. The president tonight announced a "bipartisan framework" for agreement on, among other things, to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years. A Republican House aide tells me tonight it is "a damn good deal." And so it is, from the perspective of conservatives.

As they've been demanding, all of the Bush tax cuts are extended for two years. The estate tax that was due to pop back up to a rate of 55 percent was retained, but with a $5 million exemption and at a rate of 35 percent (better than Republicans privately expected). For that huge concession, the president extracted... a 13 month extension in unemployment benefits.

Now it's true that the deal includes a one-year payroll tax cut of 2 percent. Plus other tax credits -- the earned income credit, the child tax credit and the newly-created college credit -- all remain in place. And businesses will be allowed to expense 100 percent of their purchases for equipment. Liberals and White House spinners will argue that the White House "wanted" many of those tax credits and breaks, but in point of fact the Republicans didn't mind giving more tax breaks. It sounds better to slide those items into the White House's column, but really the only concession by the Republicans was on extension of the unemployment benefits.

So you can see why liberals are morose. A Capitol Hill aide described Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's demeanor upon returning from the White House: "He looked like someone shot his dog."

To say that Republicans are triumphant would be an understatement. They won the philosophical point (tax hikes impede economic growth) and, candidly, are more than delighted to have a repeat of this debate for the presidential campaign in 2012. Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform, which strenuously pushed for extension of the Bush tax cuts, tells me,"If 2012 is a referendum on Obamacare and tax hikes, we win." Well, there will be lots of other issues, and 2012 in political terms is a long way off. Still, I see his point.

Krugman says no deal.

Obama: On GOP side, this is their holy grail. Their central economic doctrine. Unless we had 60 in the Senate it would be hard to move forward. I would like to have seen a vote before the election, to crystallize the difference between the parties. I think Democrats have better ideas. American people agree. But I haven't persuaded Mitch McConnell and JOhn Boehner. So I have to look at the best thing to do given that reality.

This is leadership?  Jesus.

More Obama:

Chuck Todd: Dems say you're rewarding Republican obstruction. Why should they?

Obama: I thought middle class tax cuts were held hostage. It's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers. Unless the hostage gets harmed. I was not willing to see the American people get harmed. This is not abstract. Taxes would go up for middle class families. Unemployed would see their insurance run out. I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two. I have not failed to persuade the American people. Polls on our side. Problem is that Republicans feel this is the most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. And they have a stronger position next year than they do currently, with bigger numbers. If the deal was a permanent tax break in exchange for these short-term things, that would have been unacceptable. That would have been a $700 billion hole in the deficit. This deal makes the high-end tax cuts temporary. That gives us the time to have this political battle.

Chuck Todd: Are you telegraphing how to have Republicans beat you? They stand strong and they win?

Obama: I don't think so. This is a unique circumstance. Tens of millions would be immediately damaged. Last two years, I was being called too stubborn. I don't make judgments based on conventional wisdom. I do what's right for the country. I will be happy to see Republicans test whether or not I'm itching for a fight on a range of issues. They'll see that I am. I just don't want to see American public hurt. And they're giving up a lot too. Earned Income tax credit, child tax credit, tuition tax credit, they're opposed to that. I want to have that battle. But don't harm the American people.

I can't stand Chuck Todd, but he got the question right, for sure.

So, Obama thinks the difference between a good deal and an unacceptable one is the difference between "permanent" and "temporary?"  As if even my dog knows better than that.  Sheesh.

Richard Trumka has this to say:

The tax cut deal rewards Republican obstructionism by giving the wealthy the tax breaks they demanded. It throws away precious resources needed for investments in jobs and our economy on upper income tax cuts that will do very little to propel economic growth--setting up excuses for the deficit hypocrites to argue for even more cuts to programs serving working families. It lards the tax cuts for the top 2 percent with an indefensible cut in the estate tax - giving yet another bonus to the super-rich. Taken together, this package locks in the growing income inequality that has plagued our country for at least another two years - and quite possibly much longer.

It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country's wealthiest families. Millions of jobless workers have lived in fear for months while Senate Republicans had the gall to use their hardships as political leverage for the benefit of the rich.

The gains for the middle class and jobless workers in the deal come at too high a price.

His use of the passive voice - "[T]he tax cut deal rewards" - is a way of avoiding the reality: "President Obama rewards;" as I read the statement, I can't help thinking that the underlying message is "This is a deal?  This is how you negotiate?  This is pathetic."

And here's the best part from Obama - on his "core values:"

As to my core values, I have a bunch of lines in the sand. No permanent Bush tax cuts. No inclusion of other provisions to help grow the economy. This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much, reminds me of the debate during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. I get signature health care legislation, but because they didn't get public option, that somehow that was a sign of weakness. If that's the standard by which we're measuring success, then let's face it, we will get nothing done. People will have the satisfaction of a purist position, but we'll have no victories for the American people. We can feel sanctimonious and nothing will happen. That can't be the measure of public service, or what it means to be a Democrat. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. NYT or WSJ editorial page does not permeate across the country. Because it's a big diverse country, in order to get stuff done, you have to compromise. When FDR started Social Security, it was only widows and orphans. Medicare started as a small programs. Under your criteria, each of those were betrayals. This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door in the past. We wouldn't have a union. We need a North Star there, what's best for the American people. Sometimes my preferred option, I can't get done. I have to do what I can get over the long-term. We moved in the direction that I promised. There's not a single thing that I said I would do that I have either done, or tried to do. Let's make sure we understand this is a long game. To REpublicans, I'm looking forward to seeing them on the field of battle.

Update: Follow up from AP is on whether the WH had failed over the past two years to set themselves up better to win this fight. Obama answers that tax cuts for wealthy is the holy grail of the GOP and that because he doesn't have 60 Democrats, the only way to extend middle-class tax cuts, in his view, was to give the GOP what they wanted, even though he, along with most Americans, disagrees with the GOP.

that's the guy I elected.  Healthcare reform is darn near a complete failure if you listened to some on the left because it doesn't have the public option.

I think the fact that both the left and the right don't like the compromise DOES actually mean something despite the jokes about that fact.

Now whether it helps him get elected is something else entirely, but yeah.  I can't disagree with anything the man said here:

Now, there's a guy who "gets it." Every time I hear him talking I find my head nodding up and; yup, yup, yes, yes! that's right, there you go. He sounds so real, so obvious, so simple.

He gave Obama more good advice tonight on Charlie Rose than the Pres. got from all his "advisors" the past two years.

Listening to Wiener I don't see how the great majority of middle class people in the country wouldn't find themselves doing the "bobble-head" along with me also.