CNN: corker just confirmed...chained CPI off the table..

[spanone]

just watched it...said that was probably why the dems 'leaked' it

no link....

talks still stalled

[unblock]

1. yay!!!

[Cha]

2. Thanks. The Dems

leaked it how, spanone?

[spanone]

5. i just got in on the end of the report....the reporter dana...? said it.

maybe it was leaked to the media, i didn't get the entire segment...

i saw corker talking then a wrap up..

[Lone_Star_Dem]

10. Just guessing here...

Maybe how the info was leaked initially? Giving us all time to get an understanding of it and voice our dislike?

[Cha]

12. Sounds like an

educated guess to me. Thanks, Lone_Star_Dem

[sasha031]

3. Thank you for the heads up spanone

[AndyA]

4. Chained CPI should have never been on the table. Period.

It's time the wealthy pay their fair share instead of the elderly, poor, and middle class subsidizing them!

[leftstreet]

6. Because Obama is withdrawing it, or GOP won't accept it?

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Probably because the Dems pulled it

The GOP salivates at the thought of chained CPI.

[cthulu2016]

8. The Dem Senate won't accept it

[leftstreet]

13. So now the Dem Senate is anti-Obama? Are they haters?

Didn't they watch him on TV this morning?

I'm so confused

[arthritisR_US]

16. You don't have to be anti Obama to not agree

with all of his proposals

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Oh, but you do

It's all or nothing!

Especially if you've convinced yourself that your own virtue depends on your opponents "believing everything the Leader says." Many of our pseudo-progressives define their very identities this way, which is why they're always confused when people who generally support Obama oppose his position on X, Y, or Z. It is the trademark of any fanatic to be an absolutist.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

54. as someone who is thankful prez obama is the president....

I feel thoroughly able to not like all his policies. And when I feel I don't understand well enough or I don't have anything I feel inspired to add to the discussion, then I just read.

However I do get tired of the fanaticism in the other direction--that everything he does is no good, rotten and very bad.

I feel like I've seen a lot of instances where people were freeeeaaaaaking out about how something appeared, only to have it turn around later. Yet they let their ugly remarks or uncivil behavior towards other DUers stand without apology.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. Uncivil is a good description

[JDPriestly]

78. Agreed. He should not have put the chained CPI on the table, but I am glad that he is

helping the children of illegal immigrants. And I like his stands on gay marriage.

I do not like his stands of surveillance within the US or of our internet and phone messages.

I like the fact that he has brought us closer to universal healthcare.

I don't like the fact that he wants to cut Medicare.

I am disappointed in the way the Afghanistan situation has been handled. I think we could have done it much better had we not allied ourselves with a corrupt regime there.

I do not like the fact that we will be giving a lot of money to Pakistan. They are not our friends. The Bin Laden situation proves that to me.

So, I really like some of the things Obama stands for and has done. I do not like others at all.

Obama's reaction to the protests in Wisconsin and to Occupy as well as to Wikileaks do not show much trust in democratic movements or much realism about what the internet means for government secrecy.

Change is afoot, and Obama is resisting it. The resistance is bound to prove futile.

Thanks, BlancheSplanchnik.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

89. thank YOU. JDPriestly

I consider you one for the wise and well informed people here. Got a lot of respect for what you have to say.

Thanks for this reply. It's the kind I want to see.

I'm also thankful for his stand for women. I'll never forget his first action--striking down the global gag rule. That was brave in the face of the POS woman murderers.

[Doctor_J]

70. Have you been on vacation?

Anyone who opposes his offer of SS cuts is a "hater". Also doesn't understand how the government works, needs a civics class, and might be a racist. Just ask the KoolAid drinkers

[creeksneakers2]

75. I never see

those replies here given to people for disageeing with Obama. Who are the "KoolAid drinkers?" People who disagree with you?

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. I get that this is your usual comedy routine

But for those who aren't familiar with your act, I should clarify.

The GOP is trying to get chained CPI included in the scaled back deal. But chained CPI was only accepted in the larger deal as part of a broader package. The Dem Senate said no addition of chained CPI to the scaled back deal. None of this is particularly inconsistent, unless somebody's only contribution is snarking at Dems on message boards, in which case, it's all terribly "confusing."

[leftstreet]

25. You're thinking of someone else

I don't have a 'usual comedy routine'



I was shocked to hear the Dem Senate do a 180 on their leader when the guy had just spent the morning on TV praising the chained CPI. That seems very disloyal

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. The ten o'clock show is always the same as the eight o'clock show

ladies and gentlemen.

Don't forget to tip your waitstaff!

[sabrina 1]

26. It is due to the huge opposition to the inclusion of these cuts to SS by

dozens of large organizations, like AARP, the Unions who joined forces with every Progressive organization in the county, and bombarded the Senate, both Repubs and Dems with calls threatening to turn their traditional support for party candidates into primary challenges to any Dem Senator (and Repub) who even considered voting for any deal that included this attack on SS.

If it has been withdrawn, then all our calls over the past several weeks were not in vain.

Shame the president gave any credibility at all to the notion that SS ever had anything to do with the deficit in the first place.

The people are serious and awake now, they were prepared to fight any attempt to touch that fund. AND they are now organizing to turn back the cuts already made, such as raising the age for SS etc. We were asleep for far too long, but not any more.

I hope this is true.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Agreed

The opposition was loud and successful, thankfully. Chained CPI applied to Social Security is a terrible idea.

[hay rick]

77. If chained CPI is really off the table who gets the credit?

Those who screamed bloody murder or those who said we were trolls?

If Obama really wasn't willing to include chained CPI in a fiscal cliff solution he could have clearly stated that a long time ago. Instead, we got:

But David, as you know, one of the proposals we made was something called Chain CPI, which sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security. Highly unpopular among Democrats. Not something supported by AARP. But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions.

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022097448

[sabrina 1]

80. The people who screamed bloody murder get the credit. Those who tried to shut

them up are growing smaller and smaller in number and I for one, no longer engage such people at all. They are best ignored, they do not have the best interests of this country in mind, blind partisanship is a very dangerous thing for any country. Thankfully though there were millions and millions of people involved in the fight to stop the Chained CPI from being part of any deal and it looks like we stopped it.

This president never, ever should have done what he did, said what he said which was incorrect besides anything else, and now he has made our Party pay the price of looking like the party that was willing to cut SS while it is the Republicans stating they will not do that. Unbelievable.

[bornskeptic]

88. Chained CPI means tax increases as well as Social Security benefit cuts.

That is why Republicans don't want it. They might accept it if it only applied to Social Security, but of course the Democrats wouldn't accept that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. +1 n/t

[Samantha]

24. Dems know the Repubicans will accuse them of cutting Social Security during the next election

I would like to think most of the Dems who speak out against the chained CPI care for seniors, but with a few obvious exceptions, I think they are covering their own flank.

Corker should be recalled by the people of Tennessee. He never defends what is in their best interests. And Tennessee is a state with a number of indigent people.

Sam

[juajen]

71. I depend on SS, but am hardly indigent.`

Every state is a state of a lot of indigent people. This depression is lasting a long time, and all our jobs being given to China has certainly made matters dire all over this country.

[magical thyme]

41. Just because Prez Obama offered them chained CPI before doesn't mean he's offering it now

He already told Boehner he missed his opportunity for other GOP demands. So yes, it appears that now that the President is dealing from a position of far greater strength, he's able to rescind past offers. His quote this morning was that he offered them chained CPI and they refused...note the past tense. That was *last* year. That was *before* his re-election. That was then; this is now.

And, as others have written above, the Dem congress can think for themselves and don't have to follow the President's every suggestion. And apparently they aren't no-brain lemming GOPers, marching in lock-step right off the cliff of their own making.

[DevonRex]

43. Obama took it off the table when Boehner rejected it before the Plan B vote

End of story. Obama has never revisited a rejected offer. Not once. Otherwise they'd be crying for last summer's grand bargain.

[union_maid]

9. This whole thing can give you quite the headache

if you're trying to follow it.

[Cha]

14. Indeed.. I'm like..

[JoePhilly]

29. Only if you follow it here on HairOnFireUnderground.

Because here on HairOnFireUnderground, Obama hates old people.

Probably why ObamaCare has death panels.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. LOL ...

and the unemployed ... probably why he traded ... oh I'm sorry, CAVED ... on tax cuts for the wealthy in 2011.

[cliffordu]

59. Best post of the fucking week. And that includes all mine.

[jaysunb]

63. Bingo ! nt

[OldDem2012]

69. LOL!! Ziiiiinnnngggg!! nt.

[Doctor_J]

11. Whew

dodged a bullet. Hopefully the Senate can talk Obama back to our side of the debate. Too bad he didn't talk to them BEFORE he offered up his presidency on a platter

[proverbialwisdom]

27. Ever consider the possibility of posturing as a negotiating tactic to create a public uproar?

[CakeGrrl]

39. Not if one thinks that the President is

hell-bent on single-handedly destroying the Democratic Party and actually believes that he is PROUD of building a legacy as Mr. Granny-Killer Cat-Food Feeder. Thank Gawd Congress is there to rein in this Machiavellian/Manchurian rogue run wild.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. It must be tiring ...

for President Obama and his team ... calculating how they, also, have to play folks that are supposed to be on their side.

[juajen]

68. I have been on his side for a long time, and just

this morning on MTP I heard him say that it was on the table. Am I crazy? I did hear that, didn't I?

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Question ...

If I offer you something that I know you won't/can't take, is that really a bad offer?

[JDPriestly]

79. As one who has successfully negotiated in difficult situations, I would say it is pretty stupid.

When you are negotiating, you make demands and then respond to the counterdemand from the other side. You try to get every single thing you want, and you let the other side know that you do not plan to accept less.

You have to show your negotiating opponent that you are willing to risk a bad outcome in order to get a good one.

You do not give anything until the other side makes an offer you can accept.

And above all, you have really good arguments and reasons for insisting on no compromise.

You do not go into negotiations with a mindset that you will compromise. You go in with the mindset that what you are asking for is right, that you and the people you are representing have a right to what they are demanding and that the other side is in the wrong and should give you what you propose.

It is utterly stupid, utterly stupid to go into a negotiation and accept abominable terms offered by the other side.

Obama should have gone public about the recalcitrance of the Republicans long ago. And he should never, ever put anything to do with Social Security or Medicare on the table. Those programs are sacrosanct in America. Read the polls.

That he put those programs on the table makes him look weak and desperate, not smart.

Negotiating is a test of wills. If your negotiating opponent recognizes the strength of your purpose and your determination and in addition recognizes that you are speaking from a solid core of integrity and honesty, you will get close to what you want if not all you want for those you are representing. It is a matter of inner, core moral strength. It comes from caring about those you are representing and having the facts at your fingertips. If you are really committed to your cause, you will stun the other side.

That is how it really works.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Having, also, successfully negotiated ...

high-stakes matters, I disagree.

[JDPriestly]

91. I am a very small white woman. I look older, middle class if not disheveled.

What works for me may not work for everyone, but I sure know what works for me. What works for me is taking people by surprise with the depth of my knowledge and my conviction about the rightness of my cause.

I just don't let them find a crack in my view of how things should turn out. My husband hates it, but then he is smarter than I am so he has nothing to fear.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. You mean ...

a public uproar, within your own base (or at least those of your base that aren't paying attention), giving you the apearance of being willing to upset your own to get a deal done?

Well, a recent PEW Center survey suggests that the negotiating tactic is working ... a majority see President Obama as significantly more flexible, more willing to compromise and more committed to a deal, than the gop.

And every Democratic candidate ought to be jumping with joy as this should carry them into the House in 2014.

[sulphurdunn]

64. Obama has always

shown a willingness to negotiate cuts to social programs for the poor and elderly to get concessions from Republicans. It's been no credit to him that the Republicans are too stupid and ideologically hide bound to have taken him up on it. What do you think he would have done had they agreed to his proposed tax increases for their desired cuts in social programs?

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. No he hasn't ...

He has, however, balanced the needs of a broad constituency ... the long-term unemployed, the poor and all other groups. If that means trading any benefits of better situated members to protect the lesser situated members, so be it.

[sulphurdunn]

82. Better situated members

vs lesser situated members? Who are they exactly? Why would the political party that has designated itself the champion of the poor and has by far the larger constituency be willing to throw part of its constituency overboard to make room for the rich man's constituents if that party is willing to sink the boat rather than sacrifice any of its members? What could one possibly hope to gain by doing that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. We've gone through this ...

over and over and over again ...

What constituency is President Obama been willing to throw over-board?

Please don't trot out the elderly, the poor, the disabled and the veterans, under the chained CPI, without mentioning the exemptions that would have been a part of any deal, had the deal been done. Thanks in advance.

[sulphurdunn]

84. Raising income taxes

on wealthier people will only encourage them to take more of their income from investments. While it is apparently acceptable to talk about SS and medicare reductions, it's not OK to discuss capital gains, inheritance or financial transaction as though they were actually negotiable. When all is said and done you may rest assured that the "grand bargain" will not harm the wealthy and will harm everyone else however the politicians dice and slice it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Capital Gains was on the table ...

and, apparently, accepted in the same deal that changes to SS was offered.

When all is said and done you may rest assured that the "grand bargain" will not harm the wealthy and will harm everyone else however the politicians dice and slice it.

I agree, but probably for a different reason. I agree that there isn't a "grand-bargain" that will harm the wealthy ... even if we tax all income over {you pick the number} at 100% and dedicate that money to direct transfer payments to the poor, that still would not harm the wealthy is any significant way. They will still have more than enough to make their needs and most of their desires.

[sulphurdunn]

86. More and more

I'm of the opinion that no meaningful reform is possible until the big money is removed from politics. That would repel the current crop of cold blooded reptilian opportunists and attract warm blooded mammals who actually wish to govern. I have no idea how to do that short of a giant meteor strike.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Removing the money ...

from politics would be a great start, IMO.

But until we get a SCOTUS willing to call B.S. on the $ equals 1st Amendment speech, were going to have $ in politics.

[JoePhilly]

30. Obama should have put death panels in ObamaCare.

That would be a faster way for him to kill old people than cutting SS.

[democrattotheend]

15. Just to clarify

I think he means it is off the table in the short-term deal to avoid the cliff. Does not mean it is off the table when it's time to raise the debt ceiling.

[nashville_brook]

17. ^^yep.

[forestpath]

36. Exactly. It's a brief reprieve, nothing more.

[Taverner]

18. Good.

Now can we put our empire on the table?

[cal04]

21. some updates

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/fiscal-cliff_n_2384726.html

UPDATE: 4:30 p.m. -- Republican senators leaving a GOP conference meeting Sunday afternoon told reporters that they are dropping chained CPI from their fiscal cliff proposal.

"CPI has to be off the table because it's not a winning argument to say benefits for seniors versus tax breaks for rich people," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "We need to take CPI off the table -- that's not part of the negotiations -- because we can't win an argument that has Social Security for seniors versus taxes for the rich."

"There's a realization that in spite of the president's apparent endorsement of a chained CPI, that that proposal deserves more study," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "My guess, based on what Democrats are saying, is that that reform would not happen during this stage of the negotiations."

"I don't think anybody ever expected Social Security to be part of this," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.


GOP senators: Social Security off table

After a briefing from Senate leaders, several Republicans said they were in agreement that Social Security reform will not be part of the “fiscal cliff” deal being negotiated Sunday.

“Chained CPI won’t be a part of the deal,” Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) told reporters.

Democrats said earlier that Republicans had demanded a politically contentious reduction in Social Security benefits, known as chained CPI, in exchange for President Obama’s request to extend emergency unemployment benefits and cancel deep cuts to the Pentagon and other agency budgets. A Democratic aide close to the talks described the request as a “poison pill.”

Sunday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) went down to the Senate floor to make his position explicit and public. “We’re willing to make difficult concessions as part of a balanced, comprehensive agreement,” he said, “but we’ll not agree to cut Social Security benefits as part of a small or short-term agreement.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/30/gop-senators-social-security-off-table/

[spanone]

22. thanks, been looking for a link!!!!

[Hatchling]

23. Oh dear god.

This will make the Republicans look good, won't it? Making it appear as if they are the ones that refused the CPI and that they were totally amazed it was even on the table.

Way to go Obama.

[plethoro]

50. That is exactly how some people will view it. The corporatists who are in control will merely

think, oh, well, our man tried, but we'll be back in six weeks with a different strategy.

[RebelOne]

31. That is good news. I just hope it holds true. n/t

[leftstreet]

34. I'm so fucking confused

So the DEMOCRATS proposed cutting SS benefits for seniors

but

the REPUBLICANS are saying no way

??

[spanone]

35. somehow i knew you would see it that way.

[leftstreet]

37. This am Obama supported chained CPI. Now GOPers opposing it

What am I not seeing?

[spanone]

42. GOP Demands Social Security Cuts -- Then Buckles...

We are not going to do anything with chained CPI now [without a debt ceiling deal]. That's a poison pill." Democratic Aide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/


guess you can frame it any way you like.

[democrattotheend]

47. I wish

But I think they are only buckling for now, because they know they cannot sell a platform of cutting SS benefits so they can cut taxes for the rich. But rest assured, they will be demanding SS cuts and cuts to other entitlements when it's time to raise the debt ceiling.

When the president agreed to chained CPI, it was in the context of a bigger agreement that would have included the debt ceiling. Now that that part seems to be off the table, neither side would win by including chained CPI now. Politically, it is much easier to make the case that entitlement cuts are necessary in the context of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling (yes, I know, SS has its own funding source and does not impact the deficit, but most people don't understand that).

This was always the real Plan B for Republicans: fold on the middle class tax cuts now, and then demand draconian spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Which is why it would have been better for us to get a deal that included raising the debt ceiling now, even if it included chained CPI, than to have the debt ceiling fight separately in February, when we don't have avoiding the cliff as leverage and we don't have the upper hand in terms of public opinion the way we do on taxes.

[spanone]

57. and they will demand it for everything that comes along. you betcha.

[plethoro]

53. I post Friday that this might happen. Will it help the Republicans as long as they

don't start the "means-testing" meme in six weeks to grant a deficit increase? I think so--a few per cent once they get their "We held firm against Obama on Social Security cuts 40 million times. Many of us thought this would happen, leftstreet. Good logic on your part.

[madfloridian]

44. Democrats and Republicans just switched sides. Now Dems can be blamed...

for putting cuts on the table.

[hootinholler]

45. "because we can't win an argument that has Social Security for seniors versus taxes for the rich."

Holy shit! It's not that they wouldn't do it because it might be, you know, the wrong thing! It's that they can't sell it.

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch!

[TDale313]

56. Whatever it takes.

I don't care if their only reason for not fuckin with SS is self preservation as long as they don't do it. Hope Dems realize it's political suicide as well as just wrong. Grateful to Senate Dems for saying no to Chained CPI for now. Gonna keep up what little pressure I can in the hopes it stays out of a larger deal down the road.

[Blue_In_AK]

60. There's an awful lot of wiggle room in those statements.

What I'm taking from this is that any adjustments to Social Security won't be included in this short-term fix to keep us from going over the cliff but that all bets will be off when seeking a long-term solution, maybe during the debt ceiling debate which is sure to be acrimonious. All of these statements talk about "this stage of the negotiations" or "we'll agree not to mess with social security as part of this short-term agreement." I don't think we can afford to let our guard down.

[bhikkhu]

38. No surprise

If you look at what the administration actually said about it, the only way they would have gone forward is if its effects were negated for the majority of recipients through changes in tax policy.

Which is to say - to remain revenue-neutral, it would have required a tax break on lower income brackets (those who rely on benefits for their only income), and tax increases for those with higher incomes and greater means. That's the definition of a "poison pill" for repugs.

Combine that with the "cutting SS" and you have something that was very unlikely to pass. If it did pass, the actual effects were pretty small, but it would be an election-year killer for any repugs who favored it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Reid: "we’ll not agree to cut Social Security benefits as part of a small or short-term agreement.”

Off the table for now. From above:

Sunday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) went down to the Senate floor to make his position explicit and public. “We’re willing to make difficult concessions as part of a balanced, comprehensive agreement,” he said, “but we’ll not agree to cut Social Security benefits as part of a small or short-term agreement.”

I'm glad ii's not on the table for any New Year's Eve deal, but that is all that we can be sure of for now. That is what the context for the statement is about. Attempts to achieve a "grand bargain" have not been called off and at some point new negotiations will begin. The "fiscal cliff" is a warm up to "the debt ceiling."

[Doctor_J]

46. It seems like Obama and the Repukes are for cutting benefits (CPI)

and right now the Senate is holding them off. See if they can hang tough in 2013

[juajen]

74. No, I don't think so. He said at the very beginning that SS did not contribute to the

deficit. He is playing chess, or poker. I will not be fooled again. I believe he has a royal flush.

[cliffordu]

58. No three dee chess. Just politics.

Keep watching.

[geckosfeet]

61. Damn well better be. SSI is spit in the ocean. These obstinate bastards are trying

anything to get a toe hold into gutting SSI.

[NorthCarolina]

62. Obama wants it, GOP wants it, Pelosi isn't adverse to it....

count on it when debt ceiling debates resume. This is only a temporary reprieve, so I wouldn't suggest partying in the streets just yet.

[Cleita]

65. Bernie Sanders and other Dems are against it so I hope they prevail.

As far as the rest, if the debt ceiling is so important to all those millionaires making our laws, let them donate their fortunes to reduce the debt ceiling. They can then live on Social Security and Medicare like the rest of us when they retire.

[NorthCarolina]

66. I'm pretty sure there's a good reason congress saw fit to draft their own

rules for retirement, independent of Social Security and Medicare.

[samsingh]

67. i hope it is

[silvershadow]

76. Good. I called my entire delegation, as well as incoming's, about it. Guess they got the message.nt

[Romulox]

87. Corker's a clown; it's not for him to take off the table. nt