Chained CPI off the table.

[WilliamPitt]

Waiting to hear why Obama sucks and stuff.

You know, for making those Social Security cuts.

That are off the table.

And stuff.

Wheeeeeee! It's DU!

[Taverner]

1. I am so happy it is

Tell me, when do we get to put "The Empire" on the table?

[Skidmore]

11. It was McConnell who made the attempt at this.

Reid shot it down. Stabenow announced on MSNBC that the attempt was made.

[pasto76]

28. ok, but the President still OK'd it as part of the deal 10 days ago

and when the pubs fell apart, he immediately took it off the table.

[Skidmore]

41. It was McConnell who tried to put it on the table today.

The President did not OK it as part of a deal today.

[grahamhgreen]

79. It is still on the table, folks, to not think so is to be naive.

[leftstreet]

2. The GOPers won't try that again!

[bhikkhu]

3. Worth repeating - the only way it was on the table is with tax changes

which would have negated their effects for those who relied most on benefits, and raised taxes a bit on the higher incomes in compensation.

As a negotiation strategy, its the same sort of thing the president did the last go around - offer the other side something they said they wanted, but clearly packaged with what it would cost them.

[MH1]

39. ^^^^ This.

Thank you bhikkhu, hopefully some people will read and comprehend your post.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Do you have a link with specific numbers?

That would be helpful, thanks.

[SidDithers]

62. Specific numbers like 22%?...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

103. And why is 22% significant to you? nt

[bhikkhu]

117. I wish I did, but there have been no leaks on specifics

or at least not that I have ever seen. Much as in the earlier debt-ceiling negotiations, we have little more than leaks and rumors of leaks, speculation, perhaps some false-flag operations, and a statement or two with partial context.

I know you're not the trusting sort (as I apparently am), but the president has been very clear about his approach to Social Security, and I don't believe he will act against his principles. And I don't believe the other side, even on their very best day, is capable of out-maneuvering Obama or our side into any disadvantageous agreement.

[grahamhgreen]

77. That's not what he said - you got a link?

[bhikkhu]

116. From the WH -

From the WH pages read, "Guiding Principles - Strengthening and Protecting Social Security" - http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seniors-and-social-security . The thought and intentions there are pretty self-evident.

And the same basic principles are repeated over and over, in the weekly addresses, in talks to the AARP, etc. Obama is willing to "tweak" Social Security, but rejects any major changes, and rejects anything that would impact those most in need.

If you look at this good article on how chained CPI would work - http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/19/obama-social-security-offer-at-odds-with-top-dems/ then you can make some safe assumptions. As it would involve a creeping tax increase, 60 billion or so over 10 years, and a creeping benefit decrease of about 102 billion in social security, then it would be fairly straightforward to make it revenue neutral by tweaking the tax codes for those most dependent on Social Security (the 50% or so who rely on it as a primary source of income). That is one way to do it, though lacking details there are probably other technical ways as well. The stated goal is that the money-in-pocket of those in need is not on the table at all - it can't be touched.

There is some reading between the lines, as we have no details of the president's proposal. What we do have is an assurance that it won't impact those most in need, and we have Boehner's rejection of it. The most likely reason I can think that he would reject it is that it was packaged with changes he wouldn't tolerate - essentially raising taxes to support those most in need. Again - that's what the president has repeatedly stated as his objective for at least a year.

[Ellipsis]

4. mh hmmmm mmmhhm mmm

*grin*

Home sweet home.

[DevonRex]

5. It was taken off

The minute Boehner turned it down before Christmas. Every offer has gotten smaller and smaller, one by one. The republicans look like fools in the face of a man who gave his best offer first, last year. They were too stupid to see it.

[Rex]

20. YEP

that is it in a nutshell. Smart people would have taken his first offer. But our POTUS knows he is dealing with very greedy and shallow people.

[grahamhgreen]

82. Link??????????????????????????

[Rex]

87. What to greedy and shallow people?

Okay but you may not like it.

[Honeycombe8]

96. Yep. That's what I posted days ago. A proposal rejected is a proposal no more. That proposal

evaporated.

We don't know whether the next one will be the same, similar, or different.

[dionysus]

112. hey! how was Christmas?

care for a holiday truffle?
the ruby and sapphire sprinkles create such a good presentation for this time of year.

[spanone]

6. it's coming....hold on.

[buzzroller]

7. It is off the table until the

debt ceiling increase, but the good news is that the headline was about the GOP asking for the Chained CPI and then backing off.

[daa]

32. Look Reid said no part f shrt term deal and at this time.

People hear want they want to ear. The guy hasn't been sworn in for a second term and is selling us out. Listen to the weasel words. Obama on MTP I offered cuts, Pelosi chained CPI I can sell, and Reid at ths time. Where do you people come up with no cuts and off he table?

[buzzroller]

35. I said

off the table for now but not for debt ceiling debate. What about that do you disagree with?

[plethoro]

51. Yep, but the new discussion will not be chained CPI. It will

be "means testing." I just wonder what "mean" level Obama will negotiate with.

[Skraxx]

8. You Can't Prove It!!! Once On The Table Always on The Table!! Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah!!!!!

He's a terrorist for even having hypothetical discussions about possibly, maybe, sorta, kinda including it in a deal!

And oh yeah! He actually REALLY sucks for this other thing that I've always been saying he sucks about too!

[pasto76]

29. I applaud your satire and parody

funny stuff

[leveymg]

9. I can guarantee it will go back on the table later.

It wasn't even relevant to The Cliff. It will reappear, however, soon. Then, will you give Obama credit for advancing the idea?

[leftstreet]

13. Let's hope the Republicans refuse it again

I know, not likely

There was no way a Republican could ever put SS on the table Looks like we're watching a party shift that won't make the history books for years

[leveymg]

24. The notion was by both sides of the Catfood Commish, which Obama created - goes back to Clinton era

recommendations that would have also privatized the SS Trust fund and thrown it to Wall Street just before the Dot.Com Bubble burst. Glad it didn't go anywhere back then, too. But, they keep trying . . .

[Autumn]

10. Here is the link. I'm glad those fucking republicans agreed

with the Democrats that the CPI was not appropriate for a quick deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/us/politics/obama-accuses-republicans-of-blocking-tax-deal.html?_r=1&

[NorthCarolina]

88. What deal do Dems think it IS appropriate for? nt

[Autumn]

92. God I don't have a fucking clue. Maybe the next deal they

want to do to raise the debt ceiling. SS has nothing to do with these "financial problems" yet both sides are using it as a tool. Disgusting.

[NorthCarolina]

95. Based on comments by Obama, Pelosi and Reid...

I would say that 1+1+1=Change to Chained CPI is imminent once budget talks resume. This is just a precursor to get the idea/term out there. The media will buffer it for a while, and then it will be brought out again I'm pretty sure.

[Autumn]

99. Oh yeah for sure, here is a link to what Reid has to say

http://boldprogressives.org/victory-harry-reid-says-he-will-not-agree-to-cut-social-security-benefits/


The one thing I do want to mention is we’re not going to have any Social Security cuts at this stage. That just doesn’t seem appropriate,” Reid said. “We’re willing to make difficult concessions as part of a balanced, comprehensive agreement, but will not agree to cut Social Security benefits as part of a smaller, short-term agreement, especially if that agreement gives more handouts to the rich.”

Now that paragraph says to me that the CPI or some type of cuts will be used, down the road. Maybe as soon as we all shut up and forget about it.

[NorthCarolina]

100. Seems plainly evident to me as well. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

121. Maybe as soon as we all shut up and forget about it.

I'm sure they hope we will but we won't shut up or forget about it.

[Autumn]

122. I'm not about to forget, not going to forgive either

the chained CPI will be back over our heads in a couple of months.

[banned from Kos]

12. Don't tell the Emo Progs! They will have an Emo Letdown!

Not good for them.

[Rex]

22. I wonder what Manny will have to say about this!?!

[Hekate]

67. He'll want a link

[Chef Eric]

94. I'm guessing he'd say it shouldn't have been on the table

in the first place.

And I would agree with him, as would many others.

[tavalon]

85. Okay, I'm seeing this all over and I don't know what it means

What is an Emo Prog?

[Hekate]

108. I had to look it up, so I'll share. Made me laugh -- sounds just like home!

Made me laugh -- sounds just like home.
Hekate

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=emo%20prog

Note: This term was seen as divisive and has been superseded by Puritopian.

Emo Progressive (or "emoprog&quot is a self-described liberal or progressive, often with libertarian leanings, whose political orientation is to be angry, dissatisfied and unhappy with the state of the nation at any given time, because in their view, liberal policies are not being implemented quickly or forcefully enough. They have particular contempt for Democratic presidents.

Emoprogs are ideological purists who disdain compromise and incremental change, which they see as "selling out" liberal ideas like full employment, an end to all wars, state secrets, and liberal social policy.

Emoprogs dislike Republicans but reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, "not progressive enough" or "just like a Republican" no matter what policy achievements are made.

Emoprogs routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" and "fight" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles. Emoprogs have a strong affinity for 3rd party politics as a way to punish Democratic presidents. They are especially hostile to President Obama and deem anyone who expresses a lack of ill will toward him to be "Obamabots" and enemies of liberalism.

[JoePhilly]

14. So Obama didn't cave as so many were predicting.

Wow ... this is only the 6th or 6th time in the last 4 years where that prediction has been wrong.

Oh well ... maybe they'll be right next time.

[Autumn]

18. Seems like the republicans caved.

Good thing.

[JoePhilly]

19. So I guess we should thanks them ... yes?

This kind of reminds me of when Obama gave the order to take out OBL ... my right wing friends gave him no credit for that.

Some seem to be taking a similar stance here as well.

But again, the predictions here on DU that Obama is about to kill SS have been a regular occurrence during the last 4 years.

Here it comes, any second .... and then ... nope.

Obama's evil plan fails again I guess.

[banned from Kos]

31. gee, I guess the whacky far left has something in common with the whacky far right

can't think of the word though - starts with "w".

[Autumn]

36. Fuck them. I'm not giving those pukes any thanks.

I'm just glad they finally agreed with the Democratic Senators that the CPI was not appropriate for a quick deal. However regarding your complaint about the predictions here on DU, Obama did offer the CPI to them. So I'm just glad the evil plan failed. No matter who's plan it was.

[dionysus]

110. brave DUers like Manny foiled his evil plot!11!1

[JoePhilly]

120. lol!!

[shanti]

83. and perhaps that's because

WE KEPT HIS FEET TO THE FIRE (like he asked us to)! I called my congresscritters and sounded off about it. He had to have heard.

[democrattotheend]

15. For Now

But it will be back on the table when it's time to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans realize that they cannot win an argument that it's better to screw seniors to cut taxes. But they have a much stronger hand on the argument that the cut is necessary rather than add to the national debt.

Still, I am glad to see that the chained CPI will not be the price of avoiding the cliff, because if they won on that now they'd be able to extract more draconian cuts when it's time to raise the debt ceiling.

[greatauntoftriplets]

16. So far, I've seen senior citizens blamed...

This is after one minute reading the front page.

[WilliamPitt]

21. Amazing, isn't it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. That's one appropriate term.

Others include predictable, disgusting and so on in that vein.

[Liberalynn]

97. Yeah Brokaw claimed they want to bankrupt their kids on MSNBC

[buzzroller]

17. But this is what Marco Rubio just tweeted

Marco Rubio ‏@marcorubio
Report that #GOP insisting on changes to social security as part of #fiscalcliff false.BTW those changes are supported by @barackobama

[WilliamPitt]

23. Rubio quoted as credible source on DU.

And I thought we'd already hit bottom.

Nope.

[buzzroller]

26. You missed the point

They are fighting over ownership and it was a retweet by Joe Trippi of Rubio.

[buzzroller]

27. I am not saying he is being truthful, just that he is trying to pin

Chained CPI on the Dems

[spanone]

65. who gives a shit what they're trying to do. the people don't buy their shit.

[bama_blue_dot]

30. Yet Lindsey Graham was talking about it this morning..

Rubio is just trying to keep himself out of the fray so he can run in 2016..

[tjwash]

37. Well...OK. bringing in rubio tweets to DU is about as scumbag as it gets.

And believe me...the bar has been placed verrrrrrrry low for that sort of behavior here lately.

[buzzroller]

45. It makes little sense to me to say

that quoting a potential GOP candidate trying to unfairly shift the blame for Chained CPI is scumbag. Please explain.

[Cha]

49. I get what you're saying.. I posted this tweet earlier..

"And, now repubs are denying they proposed the C CPI"

Brian Fallon

@brianefallon MT @jamespmanley For the record- repub senators like rubio denying that they wanted the cpi change-um, well, they are not telling the truth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2099069

It gets a little confusing around here sometimes.. Welcome to DU, buzzroller

[buzzroller]

63. Thanks

for getting it

[forestpath]

33. This is nothing but a reprieve. Obama has made it clear he's determined to cut SS.

He did that just today, in fact.

[tjwash]

40. The apocolypse currently scheduled for today has been moved to a later date

Keep trying reverend...you will probably never get it right, but, you look fabulous trying at least!

[forestpath]

43. Glad you think it's so funny. Personally, I prefer to live in reality and go by what Obama

has actually said.

[11 Bravo]

55. Gosh, some would constitute reality as what is actually DONE.

But a few of us are funny that way.

[grahamhgreen]

84. Reality exists in WORDS and actions. At least, in the real world.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. No he's not going to cut SS

you are thinking of Romney

[forestpath]

75. And Obama said his position on SS was similar to Romney's. So there ya go.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

109. No

[ecstatic]

106. uh huh

[dionysus]

111. if you keep believing it, maybe it will come true!

[CheapShotArtist]

34. I like DU and all, but man...

all the despair posts and the "Obama is going to cut Social Security" threads are just hella annoying. Like another DUer said, it's kinda feeling like the Tea Party-LEFT on here. I lurked on some of the older threads, and this same shit happened back when the Prez. first got elected in '08. People back then were going on and on about him wanting to cut the safety net and how he's "to the right of Reagan", and yet it never happened.
If he really wanted to cut those programs, I would imagine he would've done that a long time ago. At least wait and see what happens before mouthing off.

[Cha]

50. Thanks for your post, CheapShotArtist..

Not sure you're living up to your username, though.

[serbbral]

113. @CheapShotArtist

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! I was thinking the same. No one knows what's going to happen. People need to wait and see, before jumping to conclusions.

[Panasonic]

38. And the Tootsies will get a week off

before they have to fight to meet the Broncos at the AFC Championship

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. Thank you will. I usually have a nice day.

The fact that CPI was on the table in the first place is very troubling.

[Oilwellian]

46. Will, you left one small detail out

Today has been quite exciting, hasn't it? This morning we see Obama on MTP, tell the American people he was willing to make cuts to SS. This afternoon, we see Republicans claiming to have saved SS from the chopping block. Boehner is refusing to bring Obama's proposals to a vote! What a masterful negotiation!

PS: Don't ask Manny for that dinner, yet. Let's see what happens when Republicans dangle the debt ceiling chip.

Democrats had signaled some willingness to entertain the chained CPI, but only with other concessions from the GOP, such as giving President Barack Obama the power to raise the nation's debt limit.

"The idea was if you are going to do debt ceiling, you would then do chained CPI," the Democratic aide said, speaking anonymously because talks are ongoing and extremely sensitive. "They can only ask us to make that concession in that pairing. We are not going to do anything with chained CPI now [without a debt ceiling deal]. That's a poison pill."

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

[11 Bravo]

47. But ... SELLOUT ... wait ... CORPORATE SHILL ... umm ... REPUBLICAN LITE ...

FUCK! Help me out here, Will! What else am I missing?

[CheapShotArtist]

52. Liar, Reagan Democrat, corporatist,

to the right of Nixon, center-right, puppet, wolf in sheep's clothing...I've heard all of this about the Prez. within the past few days on DU.

[Hekate]

69. Evil! Evil, I say!

[grahamhgreen]

86. How is it not evil to fund war with the elderly's food money?

[Hekate]

105. President Obama is not doing that, is he?

He's had four years to do the dirty deed, and he has not done it. Nor will he.

[bvar22]

48. ON again...Off again...On again...Off again.

The PROBLEM is that Daddy is gambling with the Rent Money.
This is NOT the first time he had pushed Social Security into the Pot.

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html


Push it into the pot enough times,
and one day, it doesn't come back.

Famous Last Words:
"But it looked like a sure WIN!"


The Untouchable 3rd rail of the Democratic Party,
the "Touch This and You DIE" cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party,
has been reduced to Just-Another-Chip in the Big Game.

The Rubicon has been crossed.
What once was taboo,
is no longer.

In and of itself, THAT represents a HUGE step toward the Conservative Right.
It doesn't matter if Daddy wins THIS time,
the precedent has been set.

The precedent established by the New Democrat Centrist Party:
Social Security WILL be On-the-Table NOW,
and in every future Budget or Deficit negotiation,
until it is GONE.






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[NorthCarolina]

54. Reid said it's off the table for any "short term fix". We all know it will be back. nt

[jaysunb]

56. And, who do you think will insist on putting it back in future

negotiations ? It won't be Obama or Democrats.
The republicans are painted into a corner....

[NorthCarolina]

64. My guess is that it has already been agreed to,

but they will not include it with the short term fix because it would be far too hard to sell to the public that way. They will hold it off until budget negotiations in the new congress and it will likely be implemented then.

[stupidicus]

57. which is meaningless, since it never should have been on the table

to begin with.

why this simple concept is something so many alleged "smart people" struggle with is a very deep mystery. It's almost like you have to be a brain scientist of a rocket surgeon to figure it out or something.

not

It's kinda like putting a buffalo chip on the table instead of a ham or turkey at a meal for the homeless, and then defending the poor taste nature of it.

just because it was subsequently taken off for whatever reason/s doesn't change a damn thing in terms of the nature, character, or the thinking of he/she/those who put it there, much less make critical conclusions of that sort regarding the action "unreasonable".

and no line of buffalo chip is gonna rebut that

[Cha]

61. It's meanlingless to you.. but, you're

not in on the negotiations, are you? You have no idea what's going on behind the scenes.

[stupidicus]

68. I'm not at the meal for the homeless either

but who needs to be to know that buffalo chips have no business being on the table.

Chained-CPI is to seniors what buffalo chips are to human nutrition. They can both be force-fed, but are hardly good for those left no choice but to eat them.

[Cha]

70. Yeah, keep mumbling about "buffalo chips" while

our Dem Leaders do their work.

[stupidicus]

101. thanks for tacitly conceding the validity of my remarks

CPI was needlessly put on the deficit cutting table

As any schoolchild of reasonable intelligence could easily discern, that if it was taken off the table, the most plausible explanation is that it didn't pass the smell test, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/fiscal-cliff-social-security-chained-cpi_n_2251903.html as buffalo chips rarely do except to the willfully olfactory sense-challenged.

His willingness alone to put it one the table is ammo the rightwingnuts can use, and they likely will, much as they used the threat in 2010 to their benefit with the gray vote -- the most gullible voting block of the single-issue kind. Apparently you think it was just stupid Tea Baggers that bought into the rightwingnut noise on the matter -- their hypocrisy on the matter notwithstanding

In the 2010 election, when purported threats to the Medicare program related to Democratic policy initiatives had been prominent during the 18 months prior to the election, this pattern changed. For instance, voters aged 65 and older—the age group eligible for Medicare—gave 59% of their votes to Republican candidates compared with only 51% of those aged 60–64. Other data from the 2010 election reinforce this simple indication that voters in the oldest age group were concerned about the future of the Medicare program.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763629

That's what I called/predicted in 2009 when BHO first made a lot of noise about "reforms".

But it’s the signature program that makes the American people think of the Democrats as Santa Claus. And the number one priority of the Republican strategists is to get a Democratic President to take a shot at Santa Claus. Since FDR brought us Social Security not one single Democratic president has ever, in the history of the republic, suggested shooting or even nicking the Social Security Santa Claus. Until Obama. http://www.alternet.org/economy/explaining-pure-cruelty-obamas-gimmick-chained-cpi-simple-language

but only because BC's lust derailed his efforts to change things http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

and you'd better hope I'm "wrong", because this is the most likely scenario of the buffalo chip/turd-covered slippery slope it'll be

President Obama has brought into his negotiations with Republicans an offer to cut more out of Social Security than he would cut out of the bloated Pentagon budget. So he’s supporting the Republican’s Santa Claus and shooting the Democrat’s Santa Claus. And, like with Clinton and welfare, this will just be the beginning, once the first cut is made. Eventually, the bloody carcass of Social Security will be swept up by right-wing cons like Peterson, Simpson, and Bowles, and handed over with a bow and a ribbon to the billionaires on Wall Street.

meanwhile, my initial point remains wholly intact and unrebutted

Who's "mumbling" here? Not me, but apparently you struggle either with plain and simple english, or formulating, composing, posting, and defending a valid argument.

I run into that a lot around here.

Let them do what work -- putting crap on the table or the actual law books that have no business there, like chained-cpi, warrantless wiretapping, etc, etc, etc?

You're free to be an apologist for or an enabler of anything you want, but your condescension in this case, or even more abrasive ridicule and scorn won't obscure your guilt of it, it just leaves those like me deciding whether to be amused, disgusted, or both, by it.

I think BHO should put the repeal of the National Labor Relations Act on the table too, and make the at-wiill doctrine the law of the land again. That would at least be part of the rightwingnut fascists wet dream, no? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2012/12/14/federal-unions-sacrifices-for-deficit-reduction-took-toll-in-best-places-to-work-survey/

Then they could silence voices they've long wanted silenced, kinda like some have wanted all those BHO critizers around here, no?

[ecstatic]

107. I hope you're never in a situation where you have to reason with a psycho

Sometimes you have to say things, anything it takes, to neutralize him/her.

[stupidicus]

114. then by all means

explain to the readers here how that disarmed or "neutralized" Boner.

If it's a psycho he's negotiating with, it's more like offering Norman Bates a smaller knife than the one he's wielding and has already used, with the expectation he'll give it up and end his killing ways.

[Hekate]

58. KnR. What. A. Surprise. Color me gobsmacked!

Thanks, Will.

[spanone]

59. told you so.....

bwahahahahahahaaa

[SidDithers]

60. Speculative outrage is the best outrage...

If DU didn't get into a frothing holy mess about things that are yet to happen, it would be an awfully boring place.

Sid

[Cleita]

66. The next 29 hours are going to be hell.

[Hekate]

71. At DU, anyway.

Let's hope for better in the New Year.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. There's just no pleasing some people.

"That's just what Jesus said, Sir!"

[great white snark]

73. Ok. Is it time for the next preemptive outrage now?

I hope someone tells me what I should be worried about soon...biting nails in anticipation.

[Owl]

74. Good. Now let's go over the "cliff".

[DCBob]

76. The GOPers blinked.

they had to.

[grahamhgreen]

78. I am sick of the Think Tank apologists. Time to talk about the real issues.

Such as there are certain selfish, uncaring people that want to starve seniors and shovel big bucks to big war.

[kansasobama]

80. We need to realize that we have to keep fighting

Guys..

We have to keep fighting. Yes, Obama won. But, we have to let him know that we helped him win. It is part of democracy. It is ok if he proposed it. It all depends on how it is done. If Bush tax cuts for the rich stay, we just cannot let that happen. But, we need to put pressure on Congress.

Already, the so called-500000 compromise is a bad deal. We will take some hits but we have to fight. I am blasting emails to white house and Congress.

Ram

[tavalon]

81. Unfortunately, since I am a nightshifter,

during the winter, I go to bed at the light of day and wake up at twilight. Too much night.

Do you have a link for that? I've been waiting and hoping for this.

[JDPriestly]

89. I will believe when Congress votes to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Here in California, we had a referendum with two choices, either raise taxes on everyone more or raise taxes on everyone less and on the rich a lot more.

The majority voted to raise the taxes on the rich a lot more.

That is the mood of the country. We are tired of seeing ordinary people lose their homes while the rich cavort in the Caymans.

This is not so much just about personal interest. Most of us have neither lost our homes nor cavorted in the Caymans. This is about fairness and justice for all.

When we demand justice for all, we are no different from the brilliant men, our forefathers, who founded this nation.

[indepat]

90. Yeah, BHO could never have dreamed that either Simpson or Bowles would suggest cutting

social security benefits or offer a tax plan that benefits large corporations and the two percent to the detriment of all the rest (pure classic right wing regressive taxation). Surely not

[JEB]

93. It had better fucking be off the table.

No one, Puke of Dem that I have heard or read has explained what is good about Chained CPI. All I know is it cuts the amount of needed money that goes to Grandma and disabled people. In other words, a typical Republican scam.

[heaven05]

98. he

still has two mountains to climb, huh? All of you quislings are beyond understanding. Go Obama, my President and proud to say it even if you don't see it that way or agree, I don't care anymore. The man is a genius and got reelected as my President. Light years away from that jerk who stole two elections. He stared em down and they blinked.

[mzmolly]

102. Has Jane Hamshire and/or her fan club

weighed in?

[Vattel]

104. I know, Obama's offers are always insincere negotiation ploys. yada yada yada

[liberal_at_heart]

115. you people need to grow and take a civics lesson

If they don't cut SS and we still don't know until Jan 1. If they don't cut SS it will be because people let their congressmen know they didn't want cuts to SS. Sitting around just believing in our politicians like Santa Claus does not produce true representation. True representation means we tell our politicians what we want them to do or not to do and they do it. And if they don't cut SS and the automatic spending cuts take affect people will be affected. Will they restore the cuts to say education after the negotiations start back up after the sequester? There are serious issues that we have to address not just wish will appear out of thin air. But if winning and gloating over the republicans and your fellow democrats is more fun then go ahead. Us grown ups will do the business of making sure our politicians do the work we ask of them.

[eridani]

118. Pres Obama: David, in pursuit of strengthening SS, I'm willing to cut SS benefits

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.

Transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50314590/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/december-president-barack-obama-tom-brokaw-jon-meacham-doris-kearns-goodwin-david-brooks-chuck-todd

Thankfully, Harry Reid is still a Democrat.

[Autumn]

119. Here's what Harry has to say

http://boldprogressives.org/victory-harry-reid-says-he-will-not-agree-to-cut-social-security-benefits/


The one thing I do want to mention is we’re not going to have any Social Security cuts at this stage. That just doesn’t seem appropriate,” Reid said. “We’re willing to make difficult concessions as part of a balanced, comprehensive agreement, but will not agree to cut Social Security benefits as part of a smaller, short-term agreement, especially if that agreement gives more handouts to the rich.”

"we’re not going to have any Social Security cuts at this stage." "as part of a smaller, short-term agreement"

I think that chained CPI is coming. Obama and Harry are willing to do it. Just waiting for the right time.