How relevant is 'chained CPI' hysteria if republicans weren't serious about it in the first place?

[bigtree]

. . . and couldn't deliver their own votes for it, anyway?

the upside of it all:

Democrats didn't take the bait and saddled republicans with the only visible proposal outside of their desperation to keep their wealthy tax breaks in place.

If it's some future bargaining chip, it's a weak one now that they've shown they're willing to just cast it aside in exchange for . . .nothing. Apparently, Social Security isn't the fiscal culprit they've been pretending. It was so damn important they threw it out the door of their divided caucus.

What's left? Expiring middle-class tax cuts which would get a majority of both parties if the Senate and House republicans would let that and the unemployment benefits come up for a vote on their own.

What other bogus demand/proposal will they come up with to keep from holding a straight, up-or-down votes on the debt-ceiling, unemployment benefits, and middle-class tax cuts?

[madfloridian]

1. Now they can say that Democrats offered to cut Social Security.

And they probably will do that.

[Panasonic]

2. And the Republicans own the word C-CPI

after they turned the Obama offer with the C-CPI down, and are (or were) demanding it be included on the negoitation.

For Republicans to put it on the shelf is conceding that Obama won this battle, and will go over, and quickly resolve it on Jan 3rd.

After demanding Boehner resign his leadership post and Cantor gets upsetted for the Speaker position.

[MjolnirTime]

3. actually, it is you and your brethren who say that. But it never happens.

You act like this is the first time that you all have jumped to the most extreme of conclusions.
It's not.

This has happened time and again. But you never have the decency to admit that you were wrong.
You just say"Wait til next time".

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[madfloridian]

9. No, actually I am not known for jumping to "extreme conclusions".

I am known for standing up strongly for things I consider important.

[MjolnirTime]

11. I have seen post after post from you accusing Obama of giving away everything. You have been wrong.

At least you could admit it rather than playing the "I am so principled that I am allowed to make false accusations" canard.

[madfloridian]

13. I believe he is harming public education. I don't think he is strong on the safety nets.

I believe most of what I post is about those topics.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else or perhaps have other motives.

[bigtree]

6. 'offered' is a very broad term

It was a republican proposal that Democrats rejected out of hand. So much of a rejection that McCain called the REPUBLICAN proposal 'a losing hand,' today in responding to their ditching of their only visible proposal.

That bogus proposal, and every other one that republicans throw out there to deflect from their refusal to hold up or down votes on the tax cuts, the debt limit, and the unemployment benefits, are just smokescreens. Anyone can see that. The White House can see that.

What's happened is that the republicans have been forced to abandon their smokescreen. What's left on the table? That's what's relevant here; not prattling on and on about a bogus republican proposal that they've been forced to withdraw without any concession or retreat from Democrats at all.

Of course, you're free to construct any sort of speculative, scenario that you want. It was a republican proposal and they've been embarrassed into withdrawing it. I don't know if this escaped you, or not, but it's CONGRESS which will determine the fate of these republican 'proposals,' not the White House.

[madfloridian]

7. The Democrats put the offer on the table.

It never should have been there.

So go ahead with the attacks on me and others, because the bottom line is that Democrats should not have put it on the table.

[MjolnirTime]

12. You were never in the room. Yet you pretend as if you were.

I can see why you would do that to strengthen your argument.
But then why have you been so seriously off in your calculation of what is happening??

Maybe because you are running on emotion, not facts.

You want to be upset so badly, that you'll take throwing a fit over something that never happened rather than choosing to throw no fit at all.

[madfloridian]

14. Go ahead and let it all out. These are some very odd attacks going on.

I am getting a strange feeling about the last couple of days.

Feel free. My bruises heal quickly..

[bigtree]

15. no. it was a republican proposal that had conditional support

. . . and all of the speculative criticisms aside, the WH did not accept the republican proposal.

Where is the WH arguing to leave it in? If they were so jazzed about making this change as critics have said, the headlines would read that the President had withdrawn the proposal.

For most folks out here who can read, it is being characterized in reports as a republican proposal that REPUBLICANS took back. They own it, and it has failed to win any support from the President or Democrats in Congress. That's why it was withdrawn . . . by the republicans.

[madfloridian]

16. It was put on the table by our president. Offer or counteroffer...IMO no difference.

It was still up for negotiation.

Here again are the words of Jay Carney from the WH transcript:

" MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear about one thing: The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --

Q But the Republicans --

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022030190

It was on the table and part of the negotiation.

Trust me, I am very careful with my words here as I get hit with a blast every time I post something. Since I was warned, though anonymously, that it would happen when I did come here....I expect it.

I am being treated like a really really really big "Obama Hater", and I very much resent it.

[bigtree]

17. no. it was put on the table by republicans and tentively/conditionally accepted as part of a package

. . . republicans own it as their proposal; that's why THEY withdrew it.

That's why McCain called their proposal 'a losing hand.'


I don't think you're an 'Obama hater'

[Cha]

4. Oh, it will be relevant till

Doom's Day for some.. the rest of us will move FORWARD.

I like how the cons are denying they ever even proposed it!

[freshwest]

10. It's accomplished what it intended - depress the vote for 2014. They'll create more.

[patrice]

5. That was the best fucking deal they will EVER see. They couldn't do it & now EVERYONE knows.

The price of whatever they want just went up A LOT.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. This is about obvious political framing

We have done a good job of contrasting Republicans desire to cut Social Security benefits with Republians desire to protect the wealthy from tax cuts. So now they need to delink those two positions - they are correct to make that determination from a political standpoint.

First there will be the fight over tax cuts, but when that is over no matter how it finally plays out, the Republicans will try to re-frame the debate onto looming deficits and how to respond to them. It will come up at the latest when we hit the debt limit. That is when they will begin talking about the need to address "the long term entitelments problem", and they will insist on Democratic cover from Obama on that, and I am not so certain they won't get it.

[cthulu2016]

18. endless rationalization is endless

[1-Old-Man]

19. A benchmark has been set. No one yet knows what can be cut from Social Security

but what is now known is that old people are smart enough to know when the back-door method of using an alternative and lower CPI to attack their benefits. So that is one avenue of approach to attacking Social Security that has proven itself futile for the republicans. They will continue the assault, they will just look elsewhere in the future.