But there was nothing we could do....sigh.

I, and some others (Anne) knew Obama was a con-man during the primaries, but what surprised me was the totally, saturated Rot permeating the Democratic Party, and especially "The Leadership." They talked a big game, and said all the right things when they were out of power, but then, ooops, they won.

Another question: where will most of the pain be felt by letting the cuts expire?  On the wealthy, who still have money to spend, or on everyone else, a great number of whom will have to reduce their spending in the economy to accommodate the additional taxes?

It's true that extending the cuts for the majority of taxpayers doesn't put more money into the economy, but at least it does not take more out of it.  

Are we in an economy where we want to do things that reduce demand, or do we want, if nothing else, to maintain the current level of demand?

And before anyone swallows his or her tongue in their haste to tell me that if the rich have to pay more into the government, they will spend that much less in the economy, they already aren't spending now.

It appears that Obama believes the majority of tax-paying Americans should not have to pay even more come January, and the American people, by wide margins, agree.  And unless I missed something, he's held that position since the primaries - two whole years ago.  He came into office with a high approval rating, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a big majority in the House; knowing - knowing - that this was an issue where the GOP was going to scream the loudest, why not take advantage of the imbalance of power and make the GOP irrelevant on this issue?

Okay, so he didn't do that; he failed, in my opinion, to know the difference between campaigning and governing, and as a result, he failed to effectively govern on this issue.

Good policy is being held hostage to GOP demands and ineffective leadership.  Again.

It really doesn't matter what I think about this; it's going to go down as everything else has gone down, only this time, there's a chance we might be spared some pain come January.  I look for it to be used to justify what will be greater pain down the road - as in, "well, we managed to extend your tax cut, but the only way we could do it was to agree to do X, Y and Z - sorry!"

"My number-one priority is making sure that we make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98 percent of Americans who are affected by those tax breaks," Obama said.

Obama also said he remains opposed to a permanent extension of upper-income tax cuts:

"I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it,"

Of course, after that, to be "fiscally responsible," he'll have to cut spending, reducing aggregate demand and sending the economy into a worse recession.

Then Obama loses in 2012 and that will be that.

Unlike you, I do not believe allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is a bad move. In fact, I think it would be the opposite.

Tax cuts are not stimulative. I understand the "who is for the middle class" rationale for Obama's stance on middle class tax cuts. It makes sense politically. But it is not good policy - precisely because tax cuts breed spending cuts.