Defeat from the jaws of victory? The SS cuts (chained cpi) will mean a Democratic bloodbath in 14.

[silvershadow]

I, for one, will have a hard time being motivated about anything. The party, the national party, the DNC had better get right on all of this, and right quick. We are on the cusp on putting some firm footing under ourselves for the first time since I was a small child. But SS should remain off the table. Period. That's *NOT their money to cut. That money is supposed to be entirely off limits to politicos to settle budget issues with. That money is supposed to be in a trust fund. If Democrats stand firm on this, we will be on the right side of history. We will be where the people are. If we cave now, the party will have completely ceded all of the gains we made in 2012. We will cede all of the passion, the motivation, the pride that comes with being a Democrat. Where is my motivation to go out and canvass after the SS cuts? Those cuts will hit the youngest voters hardest, and those are the exact voters we Democrats are attracting. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[msongs]

1. a betrayal is highly believable but better wait til signatures appear after votes are taken nt

[HiPointDem]

2. why, when talking it up might change something? better than sitting like quiet little mouses

until our 'betters' determine our fates.

the last time they tried this under bush people got wind of it & the publicity killed it.

[silvershadow]

4. Exactly why I posted. I *WANT the p.t..b. to take notice now. We have had just about enough of

the dramatic political stuff taking us to the edge over and over again. Stand for something!

[Eric the Reddish]

35. +1

[lib2DaBone]

33. The politicians have stolen this money..

They voted themselves generous pay increases... took lavish vacations.. and gave gifts to the military contractors.

Now.. they don't want to pay it back.. they are going to weasel out on the deal.

Waiting until the signatures are dry in CONgress.... is useless....

Seniors and the disabled need to get loud.. get vocal... and do it very quickly.. as they are about to be thrown under the bus.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. For just themselves?

Or for their family members, and their friends, and their family-members' friends.

For betraying the American public, everyone involved gets rich.

[thelordofhell]

3. The AP "sources" are all republican hacks

Why do people keep swallowing this bullshit??

[HiPointDem]

5. You mean the bullshit also published in the NYT, WSJ, WAPO, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, etc?

There is nothing to be lost by expressing anger at the reports, whether true or the work of "Republican hacks". Obama already floated the chained CPI in the first go-round, so I don't think it's republican hacks.

[thelordofhell]

6. They all cite AP as the source...........

So yeah.......it's bullshit

[HiPointDem]

7. uh, no, they don't.

[OldDem2012]

25. What other sources are they citing besides each other and the original AP source? nt.

[HiPointDem]

28. why don't you go read them? the first one i saw was by paul krugman, & he didn't hear about it

from some AP story. he has better sources.

unless your position is that krugman is a gop mole dedicated to making obama look bad.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

46. What is Krugman's track record as to when he has been right or

when policy came to reflect his take on things?

[OldDem2012]

49. I've read them all. S-squared, D-squared. Next! nt.

[HiPointDem]

54. apparently none too carefully, then. nowhere does krugman mention AP.

[OldDem2012]

64. Well, then! I guess the case is settled....

[HiPointDem]

65. is pelosi part of the plot too?

[OldDem2012]

74. Are you that paranoid? nt.

[HiPointDem]

75. me?

[BlueCaliDem]

19. Because these people loathe President Obama

and he can do no good in their myopic view.

[DearHeart]

68. WE DO NOT LOATHE THIS PRESIDENT!! And, we do not always have to agree with the man either!!

If we "wishy-washy Lefties" do not agree with the way the President or DEMS are going about "compromising", what are we supposed to do??? Just STFU??? Only BlueDOGS are allowed to have an opinion in these matters??

WE do not have a myopic view! We just don't follow the DEMS blindly, simply because we are DEMS! We will compromise when we have a decent deal on the table; a deal that will cut the military budget and raise taxes on the rich FIRST! The people who are going to be hurt by this "compromise" are disabled VETERANS, people on SSDI, and SENIOR CITIZENS, people who have NO MORE to give!!

[BlueCaliDem]

70. When the moment some lefty blog announces attacks on this president

(blogs like DKOS and HuffPO that claim they're the president's "base&quot without researching the facts, that doesn't tell me they are supporters of his. They have more in common with the TeaBaggers in the Republican Party - it's all or nothing!

Before you get too riled up, understand exactly what the president is doing. You can go here and read exactly what the CPI is all about. In short, the "chained CPI is NOT a cut to social security.

[DearHeart]

72. Don't assume that I don't understand what the President is doing! I'm not stupid and I have been

reading up on the "chained CPI" and keeping myself informed on what it entails. I am "riled up" in part, because some people are attacking the "wishy-washy Lefties" and the "base" because we don't like the idea of the "chained CPI" and what it will do to the people who depend on SS.

This is indeed a CUT to SS. It is a "slow" cut, but it is still a cut that will take effect right away and really hurt our most vulnerable citizens: Seniors, Disabled Veterans, and people on SSDI (usually mentally or physically disabled people).

The Washington Post said this:
"Making such a change also means paying out less in Social Security benefits over time — something liberal Democrats can’t stomach. Imagine, for example, a person born in 1935 who retired to full benefits at age 65 in 2000. People in that position had an average initial monthly benefit of $1,435, or $17,220 a year, according to the Social Security Administration. Under the cost-of-living-adjustment formula and 2012 inflation, that benefit would be up to $1,986 a month in 2013, or $23,832 a year. But if payouts were adjusted using chained CPI, the sum would be around $1,880 a month, or $22,560 a year — a cut of more than 5 percent and more as the years go by.

The Los Angeles Times:
"For budget cutters, the charm of the chained CPI is that it consistently rises at a lower rate than the traditional CPI, differing by two- to three-tenths of a percentage point per year. Social Security's own actuaries have calculated that pegging cost-of-living increases to the chained CPI would cut seniors' benefits by nearly 10% over any 30-year span, compared with the current formula.

For the average retiree reaching age 85, the change would amount to an annual cut of nearly $1,000; by age 95, the reduction would rise to nearly $1,400. Over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Social Insurance, the change would cut total Social Security benefits by $112 billion"

Also, you have to make sure that if they do indeed cut this deal and go with the "chained CPI", where is the money going to go? Even the WSJ is questioning where they would use this money.

The Wall Street Journal said this:
"One thing to watch: The White House has said that any changes to Social Security should be made to make Social Security solvent over 75 years, not to reduce the deficit. In other words, if chained CPI is put in place, and it does save $112 billion over 10 years, a big question is whether that money would be used to “reduce the deficit,” or to bolster Social Security and reduce its own financial problems.

This is also part of what us "Lefties" are worried about. First that our vulnerable, who cannot afford to give up any more than they already have, are going to have COLAs cut and probably more with the "chained CPI" and that they will use the money to lower the deficit and not use it to make sure that SS remains solvent.

I will not be like the republicans and fall in line, lock-step with the Democratic Party, if I feel that this is not a good deal and in the interests of the citizenry. One cannot always be in agreement with the President or the DEMS, nor should we be expected to be.

[djean111]

76. Pelosi and Carney have referred to it. "Less generous COLA" "Strengthens Social Security"

Do you think they are just making it up?
Waiting until Obama signs it is too damn late to protest.

[thelordofhell]

83. Thank you all for playing the game

See you when the budget ceiling gets raised...........and President Obama once again kicks the ever loving shit out of the republicans..........much to the chagrin of people here who think he's selling out the Democratic Party

[graham4anything]

8. Only if you choose to whine and make sure you can continue to whine

How was that protest vote for Nader doing for those who whined in 2000, all these years later?
Nader directly led to 9-11 and Bush and bankruptcy

Yeah, go ahead and whine and get the same

But its the whiners fault.

Not the candidates you don't vote for.

BTW-the Obama voters, the real ones (not the Cutten Runners, Sad Sams, Debbie Downers who want 100% or nothing on every issue) voted for Obama and the Dems.

these whiners voters were never counted on, nor did they matter a hill of beans to the outcome

It wasn't you that caused 2010.

And with Mike Bloomberg backing all the candidates for gun control and against the NRA in 2014, whiners votes won't be needed anyhow. Money is more important to fund races and get voters to vote.
That wasn't available in 2010 and there will be better candidates.

Instead of whining, why not find great candidates for all office in 2014 that meet your approval...just make sure you let them know-
if they don't give you 100% of everything on day one of their term, you will whine that they stabbed you in the back and you won't vote for them next time.
Yeah, real great strategy, Ralph Nader would love you, and he must love the Bush family, because he was the sole reason W took office in 2001 and 9-11 happened.
And with Jeb running in 2016, yeah, go play with Ralph, he will again love you.
Makes their whining continue and they keep getting richer because whining sells their books.

[silvershadow]

9. I'm not "whining"...I am very forcefully stating to the party that this thing is a ridiculous

abdication of core principles. I am also looking into my crystal ball and forecasting 2014. I am not whining. I am telling how I see it. Perhaps you see it differently. If this goes through with SS cuts, the outcome in 2014 will be a bloodbath, just as I described. How is forecasting my take on the political winds considered whining?

[HiPointDem]

10. they get richer because folks like you continue to make excuses every time democrats sell out

their traditional constituencies -- the poor and the working class.

[Mojorabbit]

12. I cannot believe you actually posted this. nt

[bullwinkle428]

37. I can totally believe it, given his posting history.

[Ken Burch]

13. Your post is exactly the kind of post

that caused our shellacking in 2010.

At some point, guys like you have to accept, finally, that winning mid-terms is about keeping the base happy. Swing voters and "the independents" are irrelevant in mid-terms. So are centrists and deficit hawks.

Want to win? Don't diss the base.

And you had no call to bring Nader up in this. Nader is irrelevant to our current situation. Nobody here is a closet Naderite, and referencing him is damn close to McCarthyism.

[AnnieK401]

18. You mean 2010.

But yes, this is causing misplaced anger. Lets be angry at the right people - the Republicans.

[Ken Burch]

23. We have to make sure our party is always CLEARLY different than the 'Pugs.

Face it, Obama only won in 2012 because he moved(or seemed to move)sharply to the left of the positions he was expressing in 2010. If he'd stayed with "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and if he'd kept Rahm on as Chief of Staff, we'd be watching the Romney transition now. And no one BUT our party's leaders would be to blame for that.

Yes, be angry at the 'pugs...but don't use that as an excuse to just uncritically accept whatever OUR party offers instead. Settling for mush is why we lost in 2010.

[BlueCaliDem]

20. It was 2010. 2014 hasn't happened yet.

And speaking of the shellacking . . . how is that working out for disgruntled "the base" with Republicans stopping everything the last two years of the president's first term? Like it?

And there are more closeted Naderites here than you're willing to admit. But the OP was using Nader of 2000 as an example of the defeatist attitude of some on the Left. The "base" are not Lefty-Liberals. The base are people who are Democrats and who actually care about the direction of this country, not their own petty ideologies and purist's vision for it.

[Ken Burch]

22. I corrected the date.

And people who are critical of the party from the Left(both in and outside the party)are a significant part of the base. On most issues, the public is to the left of the stands Beltway Dems take.

Besides, people on the Left care about the country too. That's why we're ON the Left.

It isn't caring about the country to just settle for whatever the party gets and say nothing.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. Right. People on the Left were so concerned about

the country that they got so pissed off that they didn't get single-payer they stayed home in 2010 and delivered the president and Democrats a Republican shellacking. With concerned voters like that, who needs TeaBaggers?

And I hope you do know that all these frightening and scary reporting by a known rightwing rag is nothing but negotiations, right? Reread the article. Although the NJ is presenting it as if Democrats are in disarray and divided (a Republican shill's wet dream), what I take away from the article is that Democrats aren't saying much because they're in the middle of negotiations.

I have 100% trust in the fact that social security will NOT be touched. In fact, just as President Obama had done for Medicare and Medicaid, he will strengthened it. I do hope that the hair-on-fire bunch will have the courage to then say, "I apologize".

[coalition_unwilling]

45. The BlueDogs were the principal victims in 2010. Progressive Dems did just fine in 2010. Why did the

Blue Dogs suffer disproportionate losses in 2010? Because when people are presented with a choice between Rape-publi-scum and R-lite, i.e., Blue Dogs, they'll generally pick the genuine article. (I think Harry S. Truman originally came up with that idea back around 1946-48).

While I do not have 100% trust in anything any politican ever says, I tend to agree with you that I don't think Obama has 'caved' yet. We must all let him know that he will have our support to stand his ground against the Rape-publi-scum.

[BlueCaliDem]

47. BlueDogs or not, as was pointed out to me many times when I was complaining, we LOST power

in the U.S. House for as far as the eye can see due to Republiscams swiping up governors mansions AND state legislatures.

We lost a strong progressive Speaker in Nancy Pelosi and got TeaBagger-scared Boehner instead. Losing in the 2010 Republican shellacking, we effectively gave the GOP the perfect opportunity to redistrict Dems OUT (except for CA where we ADDED seats and got rid of TeaBaggers like Mary Bono) and now we see the deep problems that oh-so "clever" move was through their voter suppression bills, anti-woman bills, and securing power within the U.S. House through pro-GOP redistricting. How on god's green earth does having more Republicans in state legislatures and in the House help us move this country forward?

Face it . . . we've cut our collective noses to spite our collective faces and we're now paying a huge price for it. Has getting rid of the BlueDogs and losing power in state legislatures and the House been worth it? I don't think it was.

I don't believe 100% what any politician says, either, but I will give this president the benefit of the doubt since he's done a terrific job at looking out for the poor, the elderly, and the vulnerable despite unprecedented Republiscam obstructionism.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. Progressive Dems tried to primary some of the vulnerable Blue Dogs, only to be told by

Obama's then Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel that they (progressives) were 'retarded.' Then the elections came and, lo, people who had to choose between a R-lite Blue Dog and the Rape-public-scum real deal chose the real deal. That didn't happen b/c progressives cut off their noses to spite their faces. It happened because of a generalized disgust with Blue-Dog namby-pambyism.

In House districts where progressives held office, those same progressives almost unanimously retained their seats.

Seen through one lens, the foregoing argues for taking the Dems in a more progressive direction and away from the pallid centrism that left the 2010 electorate uninspired.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. I understand that reasoning, but the fact remains, we LOST power and

effectively neutered the Democratic Party for at least a decade (until the next redistricting).

The reality is, there are some districts in this country where we could only get BlueDog candidates in order to win because the Democratic voters in those states are moderate to conservative and would never vote for what they perceive to be a liberal Democrat. But the end result remains the same: we lost BIG TIME. It doesn't matter that we lost for a noble cause . . . we lost. Period. And as mentioned above, we have weakened our position to secure a majority in the House for at least ten years.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. I have seen no analysis backed up by data that suggests that Democrats lost

in 2010 because Progressives stayed home and\or sat on their hands. I've seen a lot of people asserting it but haven't seen any hard and fast data that supports it. In fact, the data I have seen supports what I have written, that Blue Dogs were the principal victims in 2010 and that they lost, not because Progressives' support for them was lukewarm, but because centrist voters decided to try the real deal Rape-publi-scum article.

I'm still modestly hopeful that Dems can retake the House in 2014. It will take a lot of work and I hope Obama's electoral machinery used to such stunning effect in 2012 can be brought to bear on swing House districts in 2014. (For the record, I live in solidly blue Maxine Waters' Los Angeles district as of Jan. 2013. Currently represented by Karen Bass, also awesome.)

[plethoro]

11. Watch for claims by the Party that they will fix the damage after

the first of the year. This will be the last straw for me.

[UCmeNdc]

14. The Democratic Party is truly stupid.

[quaker bill]

15. We have been to this rodeo before

Last time as I recall it, Boehner could not get the votes from his own party, even with stuff like this in the mix. None of the actors have changed and won't change until the new year.

His side will not vote for tax increases, and ours will not vote for benefit cuts.

Boehner could probably get a clean vote to preserve the MC tax cut passed because he can get all the dems and just enough Rs. Doing it would likely end his tenure as Speaker in the new congress as to do this he would be acting to support a dem bill. He likely can't get the negotiated package passed as it will include substantial tax increases at the top, which dems would support but combined with benefit cuts that they won't back.

The stakes just go up next year. Boehner may still be Speaker, but of a reduced majority. He will pretty much need all of the T-party caucus on board to do anything markedly (R) partisan, or he could govern working with dems and a small handful of (R) types from tight Districts in swing states.

[AnnieK401]

16. Hold on Dems., maybe Thom Hartmann is right

Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

After all there is no question that the Republicans are behind this. Maybe they are insisting on a cut that will cause the Democratic base to abandon the party. Just think of how much damage they can do if they get back the Senate and White House.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. And the so-called "base" of the Democratic Party blames Obama and the Dems rather

than the Republicans.

With wishy-washy Lefties like that, who needs TeaBaggers?

[graham4anything]

24. Yup. I am sick of the anti-Obama posts.

[leveymg]

26. It takes two to compromise. The Center-Right Dems are doing their part.

That's not inherently anti-Obama, unless he compromises on SS and other essentials.

[BlueCaliDem]

41. So am I, graham4anything. I don't mind constructive

criticism, but I'd like to see those same "DUers" praise him for the accomplishments he's made AND to place the blame where it rightfully belongs - on the Republicans and congressional Democrats.

It's as if some people are under the assumption that this president is a dictator rather than a president! I expect these anti-Obama-no-matter-what posts from Republicans and TeaBaggers, but not from the so-called "base" of the Democratic Party. I always believed we were smarter than that, but I'm growing increasingly disappointed that there is a loud minority within our own ranks who are proving not to be.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. The Rethugs aren't supposed to be helping us....

....and we shouldn't be assisting them in strapping ourselves into their electric chair.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. Good thing we aren't. eom

[HiPointDem]

30. um -- if obama holds firm on SS, why would voters abandon him or the party? it's only if he

compromises that might happen.

solution: don't compromise.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. This is the act of governing - compromise. I know it's not a popular meme for the ultras on

both sides of the political spectrum, but it's what the rest of us know needs to be done, and what's always been done all throughout our history. If there weren't any compromising, how long do you think we, as a nation, would last? Even Republicans compromised with the Democrats when Duhbya wanted to privatize social security. That didn't sit well with their TeaBagger base, did it?

The point is to compromise in a way that doesn't hurt the poor, the elderly, and the vulnerable, and until I've seen this president actually do that, I'll trust he has our best interests in mind.

For all the running around with hair on fire that president Obama would "cut Medicare and Medicaid" because some rightwing source said he would, the ultimate result was, President Obama strengthened Medicare for another eight years, thanks to the PPACA AND he expanded health insurance for millions of children AND expanded Medicaid (the very one that Republican governors are trying to reject in their states today).

The doomsday scenario the loud Left wailed about never materialized, did it? I rest my case.

[HiPointDem]

55. so you're saying he *is* going to compromise on SS? or he's not? which is it? you seem

to be defending both.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. I'm saying

the president is NOT a dictator (much to the chagrin of the Left). He's working at getting a balanced deal and he is still in the middle of negotiations so let's not set our hair on fire just yet. That's what I'm saying.

[stklurker]

80. +1

Finally some sanity.. even when you have an advantage in chess, its still strategy and how you play it.. You dont just get to 'win' because you have a slightly better position, the 'game' is still on...

[kentuck]

27. And then they impeach his ass.

All they need is the opportunity.

[HiPointDem]

29. what? who is 'they'?

[Liberal In Texas]

32. Oh yeah, if this goes through the Dems will be blamed big time for cutting SS

and if Medicare gets in the mix somehow, that too.

This is bad policy for The People and just plain political insanity.

[BlueCaliDem]

44. It's not going to get through. Boehner can't pass it in the House

because that would mean the rich won't get their tax cuts extended.

[treestar]

59. What about the Republicans?

It cannot happen without Republicans in power.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. The "safe" Democrats will vote for it, as will the retiring Democrats (think Durbin).

There's more money in being a Third-Way Democrat than an FDR-Democrat.

When there is a Democratic bloodbath in 2014, why should they care?

[Bake]

38. Damn! Where is Third Way Manny when you need him????

You are EXACTLY right.

Bake

[Coyotl]

36. Work 45 years voting Dem the whole while, and then get f**ked by your own party, work campaigns even

If this is what happens, a Third Party on the left will swell and the Dems will be the right wing party in 20 years.

[silvershadow]

53. You are spot on. The Democrats need to put a nail in the coffin of these DINO's.

If they don't, your scenario is correct.

[DearHeart]

67. I'm sick to death of these DINOs!! Any time we, the "base" or "wishy-washy Lefties"

are upset with the President or the DEMS, we're running around with our hair on fire! We're supposed to be "compromising", right? Where are the friggin compromises from the Republicans?? I don't see the Republicans cutting the military/War Department budget, or putting through the taxes on the rich!

But we "wishy-washy Lefties" who are upset about possible cuts to SS & Medicare, are now as bad as the TeaBaggers!


Sorry about the rant! Just tired of the B.S!

[silvershadow]

69. Isn't it sad when a standard, middle-of-the road Democrat such as I, with the same values

and ideals (and thinking) that I have had since the early 1970's, is now considered an extremist? Sad.

[DearHeart]

73. It is sad! It seems as though lately, you are expected to go along with the crowd, who are moving

ever more to the right.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

51. From the Whitehouse.gov site:

I don't see anything here to indicate he would change or compromise SS.


Protecting & Strengthening Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. And, he believes that all Americans deserve to know that, if they become disabled or if they lose the breadwinner in the family, Social Security will be there to protect them. Today, nearly 54 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, including 38 million retirees and their family members, 10 million Americans with disabilities and their dependents, and 6 million survivors of deceased workers.

For many of these Americans, Social Security is a key source of income. In fact, for more than half of Social Security recipients aged 65 or over, the program provides over 50 percent of their family income and, because of its lifetime income protection and survivors benefits, Social Security is particularly important for elderly women. . Moreover, the program is not just for seniors. Because of features like survivors benefits, Social Security is one of the largest antipoverty programs for children, and disability benefits also help younger workers and their families and are particularly important to minority communities.

The President is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security—and securing the basic compact that hard work should be rewarded with dignity at retirement or in case of disability or early death. That’s why he has called on Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to preserve Social Security as a reliable source of income for American seniors and as a program that provides robust benefits to survivors and workers who develop disabilities. He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced and he will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations. The President also stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.
Strengthening Retirement

In addition to protecting and strengthening Social Security, President Obama will make it easier for Americans to save on their own for retirement and prepare for unforeseen expenses. Currently over 75 million working Americans—about half the workforce—lack access to retirement plans through their employers. The President’s budget lays the foundation for all Americans to participate in retirement accounts at work, proposing simple rules and automatic enrollment—that will automatically enroll workers in IRAs who, until now, haven’t had a workplace retirement plan, while allowing them to opt out if they wish.

This should dramatically increase savings participation rates. In 401(k) plans, automatic enrollment has tended to increase participation rates to more than nine out of ten eligible employees. In contrast, for workers who lack access to a retirement plan at their workplace, the current IRA participation rate tends to be less than one out of ten.

[grahamhgreen]

63. Cuz we aint privy to the secret meetings

[silvershadow]

56. I just called and wrote to my delegation and the WH. I am tempted to start calling others outside

my delegation to make sure the message gets through. I had to write the WH, the phones are jammed right now.

[williesgirl]

58. And they will deserve it. Time for a Progressive 3rd Party if SS cuts happen.

[Coyotl]

71. The Labor Party n/t

Let's see how Dems fare w/o Labor!

[treestar]

60. Then there would be even more cuts

So it would come from voters who didn't think the cuts were enough.

[grahamhgreen]

62. Yup, it's called divide and conquer

[grahamhgreen]

61. Yup! You have to wonder, whose side is he on?

[limpyhobbler]

77. yep. The gop will run ads saying who voted to cut Social Security.

The Democrats appear to be losing on purpose.

[budkin]

78. Although it sucks I don't think the Dems will be blamed

The Republicans will be seen as having forced it. I could be wrong but that's what I believe. The Dems were the ones who compromised.

[99Forever]

79. Precisely! n/t

[tilsammans]

81. K&R!!!

Word.

[silvershadow]

82. Looks like the chained cpi killed Boehner's Plan B deal. House in recess until after Christmas.

Cool.

[djean111]

84. I read it as any tax increases at all killed Boehner's deal.

Which is it - the GOP wouldn't vote for Chained CPI or the GOP demanded Chained CPI?
Can't spin both.

[sabrina 1]

85. It was NOT the Chained CPI that killed the deal. That was meant to be the

carrot, it was the Tax increases on the wealthy that killed it.

Obama offered SS cuts as a carrot to get the tax increases he wanted. He keeps offering them SS cuts as a carrot and keeps failing to understand their pathological obsession about taxes.

But had they accepted the tax policies, do you think he would have backed away from the deal?

We all know he would not. He was deadly serious with that offer and Nancy Pelosi and Hoyer were on board to offer up those cuts as well.