I have to say that Congress' votes seem completely divorced from the talk of compromise.

I also wonder why the Rs aren't now in a corner. They can't pass extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income levels by themselves. (This assumes, of course, that for once the Ds hold firm, preferably at the $250,000 line.)

Thanks for the link, he is interesting to listen to and very clear, and it is refreshing to hear.

Nate explains it really well here: Democrats Tax Cut Dilemma

The basic gist of it is that there are three options:
1) Keep the Tax Cuts for All
2) Keep the Tax Cuts for those below $250,000
3) Let Them All Expire

The Republican's rank these options in the above order (1,2,3), the Democrats as (2,1,3). So the Republican bargaining position is to remove option (2) from the table leaving their preferred position as the only acceptable solution. The Democrats position would be a lot stronger if their preferences were (2,3,1) which is to say they'd accept no tax cuts if they didn't get their preferred choice. But this isn't the case. The debate is really between only options (1) and (2) and the Republicans simply have to block option (2). Nate lays it out in a lot more detail, so definitely read that post.

Personally I wish the Democrats would let them all expire and really point out that it was Republican obstructionism that led to this situation. In fact I wish they would just not pass anything that the Republicans block, that is to say not compromise to basically a center-right position which is what has been happening. I think if this went on long enough it'd expose the Republican malfeasance. But that isn't going to happen.

Great comment, kodama. Yes, 2, 3, 1 would be a much stronger bargaining position for the Ds, and would make tons more sense too.

BECHTEL is a small business? What am I to tell my children about how America was stolen from it's citizens?

They can't pass extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income levels by themselves.

I think the sticking point is that there are a lot of trade-offs going on. The Republicans have been threatening to withhold unemployment support; today, it was extended by 15 months.

I take a much more cynnical point of view. I think Obama, and frankly most of the protesting democrats, got exactly what they wanted. Despite palid arguments to the contrary, Obama and the democrats definitely had the upperhand when it came to tax cuts. There's no way the republicans would really have refused to pass the tax cut extension for 98% of americans becuase they couldn't get it for that last 2%. There's also no way they would have ultimately denied the extension of unemployment benefits (can we say bluff?). Imagine the political ads: Gatsby-like parties juxtaposed with soup kitchen lines; Boehner laughing it up in a Marie Antoinette get-up. They even had 60% of the public on their side in the most recent poles (extend for the first $250,000 only). So why fold when you're holding a full house (so to speak)? There's only one answer that makes sense; they didn't want to "win." They (Obama and most of the dems, that is) just wanted it to seem like they objected. After all, they have wealthy donors, too.

Bonus: I love how our mayor here in NYC, the honorable Mr. Bloomberg, tells us how we all must sacrifice, asking for wage freezes and give-backs from cops, firemen, and teachers, but coming out in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people. I guess that noble sense of sacrifice doesn't extend to him or his wealthy friends.