I owe some DUers an apology.

[MannyGoldstein]

Yesterday I posted about the President's latest offer to implement the "chained CPI", which is now being called a "superlative CPI" by the Obama administration.

A few astute DUers pointed out that since the White House did not specifically say that their latest chained CPI offer would be used to reduce Social Security, they may have other purposes in mind. So while Obama has specifically offered to cut Social Security using the chained CPI in the past, I jumped the gun on this one.

According to Senator Sanders, there are also two other uses of the chained CPI that would not, apparently, be so nefarious:

1. Cutting benefits earned by disabled veterans
2. Increasing taxes, with those earning $30,000-$40,000 getting hit the worst

I regret the error, and I hope that you'll accept my apology. I've certainly made my share of mistakes, and acknowledge that this was a big one.

[SidDithers]

1. ...

Sid

[GeorgeGist]

64. Clever.

[Jackpine Radical]

78. Brilliant rebuttal!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

85. This guy must be on vacation:

[pscot]

88. Sid seems skeptical

Mayby you could send some flowers, Manny.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Ha! nt

[Marr]

3. Also, he only offered it to trap the GOP.

That's why they're rebranding it with a friendlier name and adding the "with protections for the vulnerable" tag line. And that totally makes sense-- IT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE!

LALALALALALALA!

[Richardo]

4. All irony, all the time.

:slowclap:

[Sekhmets Daughter]

5. Those earning between $30 and $40K would be hit the hardest according to the linked article. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Only one glass of wine and see what happens?

I'm getting old.

Thanks for the correction, I've updated the OP!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

8. I know that feeling all too well!

[timdog44]

75. The second glass

will bring all back to normal.

[truedelphi]

109. Thanks for yr apology! This whole fiasco reminds me of how the wonderful ACA really hits

Those making 17 K to 38 K the hardest. Especially if they are older people.

And these would be older people who have been hurt far worse than any Chained CPI stuff, as their Social Security benefits have been put on hold for two whole years, till they are 67.

I keep hoping some senior in the 58 to 63 year old category can use their law degree to get us out of that travesty. When I started paying into Social Security, back when i was nineteen, I was told the contract between me and the Social Security Administration was that I would receive bennies starting at age 65. What good is a contract when it can be changed on a person toward the end of the term of the contract?

Now, while mathematicians sort out how much of a loss occurs to any given senior if X amount, usually under five percent, is swiped from them, it is not far worse to have TWO DAMN WHOLE YEARS taken away from us?! I'd like to see Obama and Michelle and every member of Congress go without their salaries for two whole years! After all, What is good enough for the gander of us old people ought to be good enough for the maniacal Political Class and all its sorry-assed members.

[MotherPetrie]

7. Well, those drones don't pay for THEMSELVES

[Autumn]

9. You pulled out the big gun

Bernie $130

[Skittles]

10. IT IS A CHESS GAME MANNY!!!

GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!

[elleng]

13. Thanks

[bvar22]

26. Even Bobby Fischer lost occassionally.

That is what happens when Daddy gambles with the Rent Money.
Sooner or later, The Money's GONE.

Our SS has been transformed from the inviolate 3rd Rail (Touch It and You DIE)
to just another chip in the big game.
The precedent has been set....by a DEMOCRATIC President.



...and so many here can't understand why some are upset at that "change".

[chervilant]

96. Indeed,

this fact ("so many here can't understand&quot causes me the greatest concern.

So many of us are sanctimoniously vilifying "Rethuglicans," willingly --even gleefully -- playing the derisive and divisive corporatists' game, the vile game that keeps us distracted from the issues that imminently threaten us:

*global climate change

*radical income inequity

*crumbling global economy

Ironic, that so many people believe that politicians with "D" behind their names are magically incapable of participating in the neoliberal shenanigans that have secured the vast majority of this planet's resources in the hands of a minuscule number of corporate megalomaniacs who arrogantly believe they have the paternalistic right to determine the fate of humanity...

Witnessing these puerile mud-flinging orgies, I grow ever more jaded about our species' future.

[Curmudgeoness]

104. Thank you for making so crystal clear.

I, too, am appalled by the number of DUers who are not appalled by this.

[caseymoz]

33. Ah, I see. So Repubs take the deal.

. . . and then it's Fool's Mate on Obama. I should have seen genius here. Lowering the GOP's guard by offering them mate in three. Then when they decline it, move in for the kill.

[progressoid]

39. Your feeble mind just won't understand...

[midnight]

47. K&R.... k&R.... K&R...

[Skittles]

54. STOP IT PROGRESSOID

YER KILLING ME

[AnnieK401]

79. He does seem to be playing 3D chess.

[Whisp]

11. ...

[wilsonbooks]

74. Gee that looks like a big pile of steaming cow dung.

Hope we don't have to eat it if the chess match goes south.

[L0oniX]

100. How did you get that picture of Sids backyard? n/t

[Kalidurga]

12. I knew this was going to be an awesome thread.

I was wrong, it's way better than awesome.

[elleng]

14. Thanks

[freshwest]

23. No, it's bait. Same theme, no change.

[patrice]

98. Same theme, "IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY" ...., "but 'we' hate being bought & sold as slaves!"

[Swede Atlanta]

15. I wish the President wasn't offering these give-aways in a naive belief

the Republics would actually come to the table and negotiate in good faith.

They will NEVER do this. They hate having a Democrat in the White House and want the "white" back in the "White House". They hate the fact that an uppity black man and woman are in the white people's house. It makes them so angry they see red.

Obama, stop offering anything to them. Stand your ground. They will only give up once the American people rise up and Boner boy, Four-eye Cantor and Pretty-Boy Ryan's figurative heads are on spikes in Washington.

[frylock]

16. it takes a person of strong character to admit when they're wrong..

I hope that you've learned a valuable lesson, Mr. Third Way. We should always, ALWAYS, trust that President has all of our best interests at heart.

[markpkessinger]

18. Also sprach Brittainy Spears . . .

Oh, wait . . .

[madfloridian]

30. Yes, indeed.

And all sensible woodchucks know that.

[KoKo]

93. of course....+1

[Overseas]

102. Sad +1.

I can imagine Tom Tomorrow doing a cartoon about the bewildering voters who vote by large majorities for disgusting dependency and foolish compassion.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. You're showing a lot more class

than some of the responders on this thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Maybe because the responders understand that the apology is satirical? n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

60. Ah, Third-Way Manny

got me.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Again, the Obama proposal has "protections for the vulnerable"

Senator Sander's article links to information that considers the simple chained CPI, with no mitigations in place. For instance, this report from the Joint Taxation Committee:

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/media/pdf/112/6-29ResponseChainedCPI.pdf

That's the source for your "increasing taxes, with those earning $30,000-$40,000 getting hit the worst." It only looks at the chained CPI alone.

[brentspeak]

40. What % of Social Security recipients AREN'T "vulnerable"? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

41. This thread isn't about SS, it's about other ways the chained CPI could impact people.

And, again, it's comparing apples to apple pears.

[truedelphi]

111. So it is now verbotten to mention items tangential to the

Discussion!

Good to know.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Oh, brother.

Would you like to address my point? Blaming Obama for policies he's not actually advocating seems like a silly thing to do if someone wants to be persuasive.

[joshcryer]

162. A 150% poverty exception would make that 0%.

As it stands now 10% of seniors are currently in poverty.

I am not saying I support Chained CPI (before people start claiming I am).

[treestar]

108. This poster has a fetish about "cutting" social security

Even if it is cutting benefits going to the rich. Social Security is one thing that is not means tested.

Proving that the point is to find Obama doing something horrible, not to really protect the vulnerable.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. "This poster" - you mean me?

The only thing I have a "fetish" for - nice prejudicial scare word there - is a discussion based on actual facts. If people want to come here to Democratic Underground and slam Obama for things that he's actually doing, fine. But making up crap about him? Fuck that noise.

[treestar]

119. No I meant the OP

Who posts fourteen posts accusing the President of wanting to wipe out Social Security per month if not more. Goes very deep into the issues to find something that might look like a "cut to Social Security" to prove that Obama is a traitor to FDR. Will never acknowledge the part about protecting the vulnerable.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. Oh. Sorry about the friendly fire.

[Jackpine Radical]

141. The lack of means testing is one of the major safeguards

against the rapacity of the rich.

Once we start means testing SS or MC, we're putting them on the chopping block.

MC is slightly means-tested already, in that the upper crust has to pay a larger copay on their premiums (like maybe $135 instead of $110 or something), but it's still a good deal for the rich. Take that away, and you risk the whole show.

[treestar]

143. But then cutting the benefits of it to the rich

May be not much different than raising their taxes.

It may not even be a good idea. But just the idea of cutting some part of it seems to be so utterly unacceptable. But it'd be worse to cut something like food stamps.

And then there's the political reality. Obama would not make such suggestions if there was not a Republicans Congress. Yet OP always blames Obama and not the Republicans. And then insists that LBJ would have forced the Republicans to vote for liberal and progressive programs by some means of intimidation which Obama is apparently too "spineless" for, which IMO is just magical thinking. We don't want blackmailing Presidents who can force elected Representative to vote against their conscience just out of fear of him.

This is a summary of these repeated debates on DU over the past 4 years.

[Jackpine Radical]

145. The problem is that the cuts come as offers from the White House

rather than as demands from the Republicans.

Remember when Obama took SS of the debate table by saying he & Willard weren't that far apart?

Who do you think will get the blame if SS is damaged? Who will deserve the blame?

[JoePhilly]

21. This is it!!! Here it comes!!! Any second!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

24. ^^ Coward ^^

Last edited Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:16 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2419067

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2419848

[JoePhilly]

70. ^^^ Failed Prognosticator ^^^

[MannyGoldstein]

71. ^^ Prove It... Or Be Proven A Coward ^^

Enough of your simpering hit and run attacks. Prove something or scram.

[JoePhilly]

72. Sorry Chicken Little, I'm staying.

And say hi to the boy who cried wolf for me when you repost this same thread next month.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Again, an evidence-free post

You should be ashamed. Accusing people then running off.

Coward!

[bluestate10]

124. You throw up pure bullshit, then demand that others prove something?

What un-distilled chutzpa.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. Just a link showing what they claim I said

Which never seems to show up, nor does an apology.

Cowards!

[JoePhilly]

133. You stopped making specific claims shortly after the 2010 State of the Union.

Back then, you were sure Obama was DEFINITIVELY going to announce major cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Didn't happen. Its was going to be in his 2010 budget, the summer debt fight ... on and on.

Starting sometime in about the summer of 2010, you started to change your approach to generating outrage. Obama's evil plan just wasn't happening.

And so, Instead of making a specific prediction, you began to simply IMPLY something terrible was about to happen.

Its a great tactic. You get to be outraged, over and over, as do some of the other perpetually disgruntled, even though nothing actually happened.

And you've been doing so ever since. In Obama's first term, I'd say the frequency of your hair-on-fire "Obama's about to kill granny" threads was about every three months. Since Obama's reelection, however, its seems you've increased the frequency to almost once a month.

Clearly Obama's reelection upset you.

Don't worry, he'll only be President for just under 4 more years.

[MannyGoldstein]

134. False.

Find my SOTU claim. Or apologize.

[JoePhilly]

135. I'm not going to re-show you that which I've showed you before.

We've done this before. I showed you the post. And you tried to weasel word your way out of it. You point at things other people said, or anonymous sources. Or my favorite, you use your secret Obama outrage decoder ring, to find the secret evil plan.

Let's be honest, you post basically the exact same thread over and over and over, every month or so.

Its your schtick.

And by getting reelected, Obama gave you an extra 4 years of whining opportunity.

Stick with it. It works for you.

[MannyGoldstein]

136. False.

And that's that.

[JoePhilly]

137. True .. and ... my prediction is that ..

You'll be re-posting this same basic OP within the next 5 weeks.

The trains must run on time, and the manufactured outrage doesn't just make itself.

[MannyGoldstein]

138. If Obama keeps proposing cuts to Social Security, then someone

should be calling to people's attention. I'll do the honors if nobody else does.

[bluestate10]

159. Nah. You just keep making stuff up. You are either ignorant about how the CPI works

for a range of economic activity, or you're outright disingenuous. Which one is it?

On edit. Joe, my bullet was aimed at Manny, not you. I am pretty much on the same page with you on many, many issues that are discussed here on DU.

[bluestate10]

160. Having a rational argument with Manny is like trying to catch a waterfall with your bear hands.

Manny simply demands standards of debate that he is wholly incapable of delivering from his side. There is only one sure thing about Manny, he will make feeble attempts to bash the President.

[SidDithers]

34. Nailed it...

Sid

[freshwest]

99. Just don't hold your breath while you wait. Predictable gambit, but no cigar.

[forestpath]

22. Probably hardly any of those people voted for him anyways!!!!1!1

[dsc]

25. actually the estate tax is now indexed

, one presumes, to the current CPI.

[Rex]

27. I see what you did there.

nt.

[randome]

28. You're no Stephen Colbert.

[WillyT]

29. K & R !!!

[bvar22]

31. DURec.

I remember when Social Security was the inviolate Touch It and You DIE 3rd Rail.
Not even a Republican dared to touch it.

Now, its just another chip in the game.
If President Obama keeps pushing it into the pot,
sooner or later, it won't come back.
Even Bobby Fischer lost a Chess occasionally.

I don't want arbitrary "protections for the vulnerable."
I want my Social Security!
Hands OFF!

[Why Syzygy]

32. Just as nefarious..

I fail to see the up beat on this announcement. Veterans already take a beating. And raising taxes on a marginally medium income is insane. We need something to hit the overseas tax evaders and the other mega rich who have tax law written for them personally. Anything less is poppycock.

[tavalon]

43. Check your irony meter

Manny also fails to see the up beat. As do I.

[Why Syzygy]

45. Could be askew...

I admit it. I don't know Manny. Thanks for the reassurance, though.

All this stuff that's "on the table" scares the beezus out of me. Especially given who put it there...

[tclambert]

121. The words "Manny Goldstein" come from an ancient dead language

in which it means something like "sarcastistical satirologist."

You have to see the humor to hear the truth.

[busterbrown]

35. Well now that it’s all settled.....

Back to Christian Mingle for this Jewish guy.

[grantcart]

38. I have a close friend from the tribe who says

Christian Mingle = the place folks can go to make sure they don't get a Jewish blow job by accident!

[Skittles]

55. SCHEDULING YOU TWO FOR A DUO-ASS KICKING

*EGREGIOUS*

[busterbrown]

56. Ass long as the ass kicking

is from a goyish looking gal!

[Skittles]

58. I am strictly Nordic, darling

[busterbrown]

62. Well thats good enough for me....

Somehow I don’t think its DU appropriate to play the next move....But ah, what the hell!

[rucky]

67. The best way to make sure that doesn't happen

is to marry one.

[NeeDeep]

36. You are all about money,

you don't have to apologize though, the intricacies of money and what you see in it are quite revealing though. Using money against your enemy, as many can't fathom, is quite a parlor trick in politics. Misdirecting, gutter sniping, character assassination, they may understand as something a conservative would use, but MONEY, well that's a new one. Actually, we see this shit all the time, it's called the budget, and we understand it at the state level and federal. The taxes paid to support it we also understand, if you want services, of any kind, YOU or someone else has to pay for it. So quit acting like someone is jamming a hot poker up your ass when you pay taxes, be thankful you can, and be thankful for what it buys, because the ability to buy government services, is not a guarantee, when it's gone, it may never come back. Of course you and your money seems all that really matters, not people or their welfare, or the future, or our children's future, or the quality of their future. I frankly can't stand your selfish nature or your 'factual' apology, devoid of remorse or regret. YOU are what bothers me, a self-serving busy body full of detail, using 'reality' against people, to derail people, never to help people.

[patrice]

57. +1 Why aren't we asking, god forbid!!, what could be bought in terms of loophole abatement, or solar

investments, or housing for the homeless, or childcare, or greater health care insurance subsidies, or expand the income qualifiers on the low end for those health care insurance subsidies, or . . . .

WHY aren't we asking what could be bought for a minimal amount of stress in somekind of CPI (and there are apparently at least a few different kinds of CPIs) especially if that could then put us in a position to also get something like a Wall Street tax, or an increase in the top tax rates, or REALLY go after all of the middle-wo/men (not the care givers) jacking the costs of health care up?

EVERY time this stuff starts on this board, I can't help but wonder, if those involved REALLY do think it's a simple as one issue at a time. They ridicule the chess analogy, but ridiculous is it to think that any of this is treated as though it were separate from any other part of it? I think Social Security should be protected and perpetuated FOREVER too, but that doesn't mean that I won't consider a little stress on my benefit in order to get a debit of another order elsewhere in my life.

What gives here? I really don't understand. Some people really ARE up against it worse than others, maybe they can still be protected as Senator Sanders suggests, but maybe some of the rest of the sturm und drang that keeps getting repeated on this issue is about people having too much time on the internet, a storm generated locally here, that'd be much different if more of us were doing other things for our issues.

Why isn't DU asking itself: Solar? vs. No CPI? Environment seems so dreadfully threatening and the poor will suffer the most from the changes and, yet, we're going to destroy whatever political base for action PO has over a CPI that might not even apply to most of us? What do I NOT understand here?

Priorities?

:shakeshead:

[Fumesucker]

63. The question is though, who is the "enemy"?

There are those of us who not unjustifiably believe that the 99% is the enemy of the vast majority of politicians.

[patrice]

89. Hypothetical "yes", but the question is what to do. TIME is short. Have you seen those graphs

of where we are with carbon emissions and where we NEED to be?

What shall we do about "our" "enemies"? Whose plan for genocide shall we implement?

I'll go with the principle that at least the most disadvantage should be given the most chance to save themselves, but how the hell are we going to do that with just money, since money (WHAT THE FUCKEVER THAT IS) is the problem in the first?

It's time to start an (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations) Real-Value-based sector of the economy, but I hate this "savings account" model I'm seeing around.

[patrice]

87. Some people bitch about everytthing being about money and then they MAKE everything about money.

[grantcart]

37. its good of you to apologize

When I saw a rush to rec I was somewhat disheartened by the knee jerk reaction.


Here is what I see:

The President has raised taxes on the rich. He campaigned on it and in so doing has changed the entire framing of the revenue side.

Secondly he is demanding MORE revenues and standing firm before any cuts. Corporate welfare and loopholes are going to get close scruitiny

Third he has moved defense on to the table. There will be not deal without sizeable defense cuts. He has split the Republicans on this issue.

Finally many of the so called cuts, like the ones in Medicare, appear not to be to the beneficiaries but to those corporate entities who are abusing it.

I believe that if we were asked 3-4 years ago if this would be a good deal we would have thought it impossible.

That would be enough in my book but he has also done it in such a way to keep the Republicans on the defensive, divided (they cannot even agree on a rebuttal to the SOU) and about to be slapped silly by Wall Street when the stock market loses 15-20% of its value.

Let's just be patient and see what moves he has.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

49. thank you. So many actions being taken, so many facets...

Sarcasm does readers a disservice. Just not informative enough.

I appreciate the expanded info.

[rhett o rick]

42. k&r

[Fire Walk With Me]

44. Hurting disabled Vets and the low income STILL sucks. :(

[Hissyspit]

48. I think that's the point.

Unless I really don't know Manny very well.

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. I agree; I saw it as purely sarcastic and I fully agree with the sentiment!

[madfloridian]

51. I don't think many are tuning in on Manny's points being made.

Reading this thread is eye-opening. He inserts knife and twists in such a way as to make some scratch heads.

[sabrina 1]

52. Well you have to admit, hurting veterans and low income workers

shouldn't bother pragmatists. Alan Simpson, Obama's very own choice for this committee said that Veterans were greedy for taking their benefits when the country is so in debt and not heroes like they were when they went to war. What Progressive Democrat could not agree with that sentiment? And who, if they agree with Simpson, could object to taking away their benefits when you think about it. And those low income workers, shouldn't they have pulled up their bootstraps and gotten themselves out of that low income status?

You are correct, this thread is eye-opening. Caring about veterans and old people and education and low income workers, and the disabled, that is so 'Bush Era Democrat'! We have moved forward as you can see and no longer bother our beautiful minds with such trivia.

[madfloridian]

59. Well...

We are not just "sensible" enough to understand the political game. And look what Simpson said about seniors...was it greedy?

[MannyGoldstein]

69. "The Greediest Generation"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/alan_simpson_social_security_n_693277.html

And who can forget "I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too...We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits!... Stop yapping your lips and listen good. This commission might be packed with millionaires, but we're looking out for little people who need Social Security."

Thank goodness that our country has a heart big enough to allow even a lying, greedy, sadistic rage-o-holic like Simpson to co-chair a commission charged with deciding the financial future of America's most vulnerable. Our wanton sufferings will be lessened just knowing that America is a place where even Captain Bullshit, and his ankle-biting-buddy Bowles, can enjoy the warm embrace and deep respect of our President.

As the President tells the Captain and Bowles in my sig below, "We've got more work to do".

[KoKo]

94. Thanks for the refreshment of Simpson's wisdom...

[Jackpine Radical]

82. The real problem with disabled veterans

is that they selfishly survived their injuries. They lacked the grace to die once they had served their purpose.

[KoKo]

95. It is shameful,indeed. What a drag on our national economy they are..

and they always want more and more. When will it end?

[patrice]

97. That's related to the same thing we say about how we are told "There's not enough (whatever) to go

around" when, IN FACT, there IS enough to go around, the REAL problem is how we are living.


. . . fucking MONEY!!!

[truedelphi]

112. So Sabrina -

[DeSwiss]

46. Always follow your instincts. - K&R

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ” ~George Orwell

[Demo_Chris]

53. Apology accepted lol

[xchrom]

61. ...

[datasuspect]

65. superlative

just superlative

MANNY FOR PRESIDENT 2016

[Doctor_J]

66. Apology accepted

Now put down the wine, and pick up the Kool-Aid!

Our government, with the exception of a relative handful of real Dems (Grayson, Sanders, Ellison, ...) is completely out of control.

[midnight]

68. The rich are referring to this CPI as a minor tweak.

Wall Street billionaires and other supporters claim that changing the consumer price index is a “minor tweak.” Tell that to the millions of senior citizens trying to survive on just $14,000 a year whose Social Security benefits would be cut overall by $112 billion during the next decade.

Read more: http://thehill.com/special-reports/state-of-the-union-february-2013/282395-chained-cpi-an-economic-moral-disaster#ixzz2Lp4nb5qS
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[AndyA]

76. Cutting benefits to veterans and increasing taxes on $30,000-40,000 income is still unacceptable

Not when we're subsidizing oil companies that are making billions in profits every quarter, allowing multi-millionaires to pay far less in taxes as a percentage than average Americans, and have companies like AT&T, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, etc., that pay essentially zero taxes.

No, no, no. Unacceptable. Our veterans deserve better than that. The GOP should be hit really, really hard for their failure to support the troops. Sure, they'll send them off to be killed in one of their trumped up wars, but forget any interest in them once they return home.

Any cuts need to be to the loopholes allowing millionaires and corporations to pay less than their fair share. Average Americans should not be asked to give up anything more until the playing field has been leveled.

[graham4anything]

77. How are you apologizing? you are still putting President Obama down.

As for your mistakes, everyone is entitled to them

IMHO the biggest one you make is thinking President Obama is not the best President you are going to see since LBJ, and also another one is thinking Eliz. Warren is not part and parcel
of (as kiddies say) Team Obama.

But i assume your OP is an attempt at humor.

or as Danny Kaye said in White Christmas "The Crooner is now a comedian".
Mutual I am sure.

[Autumn]

80. It's funny. You post Obamas offer from the WH web site, and you are putting Obama down

[Doctor_J]

83. Duh

The president's offer to cut benefits for seniors, veterans, and the working poor makes him an easy target for put-downs. If I'd wanted SS cuts I could have voted Repuke. Oh, wait. I DID vote for a self-identified "moderate" Republican.

[Autumn]

84. The president's offer to cut benefits for seniors, veterans, and the working poor

is not the problem. Manny pointing it out is the problem. Manny is so mean to point it out.

[Uben]

81. That's okay, I made a mistake here once.......

.....it was in 04, I think, but I can't really remember.



sarcasm...he he, Manny, we all screw up occasionally....especially in heated threads. I erase all data in my brain daily to save memory, so you're good!

[shcrane71]

86. Apology accepted. Don't let it happen again. ;)

[ProSense]

90. President Obama's policies: big savings and smart spending

President Obama's policies: big savings and smart spending
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022421084

Thanks for your comment.

[blackspade]

91. snort.

[Uncle Joe]

92. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. "2. Increasing taxes, .." is as clever as Reagan's taxation of 50% of SS benefits for the first time

and as clever as Clinton's increasing the percentage from 50% to 85%.

Of course, this is subject to a sliding scale depending upon a SS recipient's other income, if any.

Very clever.

Just watch Obama increase the percentage from 85% to 100%.

[bluestate10]

103. The cuts that you mentioned are unacceptable. There are other uses of CPI.

The federal government is by far the largest purchaser in the nation. A lot of purchases are made via adjustable contracts that can be adjusted based upon suppliers' actual expenses and a reasonable profit margin. There are many contract situations where the federal government can use a declining CPI to bring about lower spending.

Manny, I have never stepped into horse**** in my life, you aren't going to put one of my feet in a pile with your clever attempt at a trick. Enjoy the snow that our state is getting, I think it looks beautiful.

[patrice]

105. Thanks for this information. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

110. Any links to back you up?

Or is this another of your renowned fact-free hit-and-run jobs, like:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2416439

[truedelphi]

113. Maybe they are busy today? After all, It is Sunday,

And company and family obligations take over. So please give me some slack if I don't get back to you with at least a half a hundred links on the sacrifices our Banking Crowd has agreed to, per discussions between Geithner and Obama, and now Jack Lew and Obama, and I am sure you will understand, Right?

Also, I have heard it rumored that many in the Wall Street crowd are waiting till the end of the week in December when bonuses are posted, which can be a hardship. They used to get those bonuses EARLY on, like on Monday rather than Friday!

[MannyGoldstein]

117. Any time now...

I guess if everyone checked facts before they posted, then we'd all be Liberals and we'd be in much better shape.

Sigh.

I shouldda been a banker.

[bluestate10]

123. Sorry, but President Obama isn't evilly thinking of how to screw SS recipients.

Use of the CPI is driven by statue. Of course you will claim otherwise.

http://www.bls.gov/dolfaq/bls_ques1.htm

[MannyGoldstein]

129. Well, at least we're starting to agree.

Yes, CPI is driven by statute. But that's not what's at issue here - what's at issue is whether the current CPI (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) formula used for Social Security, and (according to Sanders) wounded-veteran benefits and taxes, should be one that will increase more slowly (Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers).

You'll notice that neither of those CPI names mentions retirees. Interesting, no?

It turns out that the BLS (the people who calculate CPIs) *do* have a CPI for the elderly - it's called the Price Index for the Elderly. Strangely enough, it shows that the current CPI is too low. Again, it shows that the current CPI is too low.

So the CPI in use already understates inflation for the elderly, yet some want to understate it even more. This is shameful.

So now it's your turn to do some research: for each of the purposes mentioned in the page you link to, would lowering the CPI calculation help or hurt working Americans?

I look forward to your list.

[truedelphi]

142. And I would be forever grteful if the Fed Government would release the names of the

Grocery stores they use to calculate inflation. Fourth quarter inflation rates for 2012 put inflation under 4 percent. Gosh, those stat gatherers are NOT shopping at the places I am shopping!

[bluestate10]

164. Manny, I stated in this OP somewhere that in the case of disinflation, the CPI should freeze.

Do you understand what disinflation mean? I doubt it based upon your willful displays of ignorance. The issue that I have with your arguments is that you know nothing about what and how the President plans to save via the CPI, neither do I. But, unlike you, I am not going around making shit up.

Let me ask you a question. If the CPI results in a 20% reduction in what Seniors and the government pay for senior health-care, is that a savings? If not, explain the hell why it isn't saving.

Another question. Health Care Reform already has started to bend the health care cost curve downward. If the President is including projected savings from future reduction in health care costs for Seniors, is that an invalid statement of savings? Can you say for sure that the "cut" that you shat your pants over not those very same health care savings stated as a reduction in spending?

[treestar]

140. Thank you

This type of hair on fire post usually contains an impulsive jumping to conclusions. When someone looks at things more calmly, we learn that the hair on fire isn't necessary. Happens again and again on different issues.

[judesedit]

106. When I see the bill for myself, the entire bill, I will judge then.Not before.Obama's for the people

The GOP, who, by the way, created the deficit is pushing his hand. Obama wants the minimum wage set at $9.00 an hour. Who's fighting it? The GOP. Wake up, fool. You have no idea what this bill says in its entirety. You're probably a rw plant just trying to stir up trouble like the rest of your cronies. None of this is good. Blame the GOP where the blame belongs.

[MannyGoldstein]

118. Well, we agree on something.

That one of us is a fool.

[dorkulon]

107. IOKIYAO?

[michigandem58]

115. BULLSHIT SPEWED BY AN OBAMA BASHER AT DU ??????????????

Say it aint so!

[Divernan]

120. Manny you have long been & remain my DU hero!

[tclambert]

122. You SHOULD apologize!

You've only posted 20,000 times. I want more.

[limpyhobbler]

125. I never realized so many people comment on posts without reading them.

Some people think it's an apology.

[Jackpine Radical]

154. But it IS an apology

Like the one I sent My Favorite Wingnut when he thought he had scored a point on me with some Fox nonsense & demanded an apology for my calling him on it.

I responded--

OK, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry you're such an idiot that you actually think you made the point you think you made.

[cheapdate]

126. You don't really have any idea of what formula would be used

for calculating inflation or the CPI in president Obama's proposal, do you?

[MannyGoldstein]

127. Yes, it's well known

Should I Google it for you?

[MannyGoldstein]

130. Did you find it yet? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

131. How about now? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

139. Now? nt

[ProSense]

144. Looks like you need to

get on the phone:

US Senator Elizabeth Warren: Sequester cuts are ‘just plain dumb’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022425872

I suspect there is a strategy at work here.

[MannyGoldstein]

146. Why? nt

[ProSense]

147. It was just as suggestion.

No reason. Just thought you'd like to send her some support.

[MannyGoldstein]

148. Did she say something I should disagree with?

As far as I can tell, she said that she wouldn't have proposed what our President proposed, but it was preferred to the sequester.

Am I misunderstanding that?

[ProSense]

149. No, you

"Am I misunderstanding that?"

...got it exactly right.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren today urged Republicans to accept what she called a “balanced proposal” from President Obama to ending the standoff over the series of extensive across-the-board federal spending cuts set to take effect Friday.

“It’s a little more balanced than I would have put on the table if I’d been in that position,” Warren said, describing Obama’s plan as a 50-50 split between spending cuts and “closing some corporate loopholes like oil company subsidies.”

Are you going to call and encourage her to vote against the President's proposal?

[MannyGoldstein]

150. Did I say his proposal was worse than the sequester? nt

[ProSense]

152. The sequester doesn't include chained CPI.

Grandma lives.

"Did I say his proposal was worse than the sequester?"

I never said you did, but which is worse?

I mean, if given the choice between the President's proposal and the sequester, you think members of Congress should choose the President's proposal?

[MannyGoldstein]

153. I'm not sure which is worse

I'll have to trust in Warren on this one.

[ProSense]

156. "I'll have to trust in Warren on this one."

LOL!

[Demo_Chris]

151. Let's see what she does

Pretty campaign speeches are all well and good -- President Obama is a master at them -- it's what you do when the campaign is over that matters.

[ProSense]

155. Um,

"Pretty campaign speeches are all well and good -- President Obama is a master at them"

...what the hell does my comment have to do with "pretty campaign speeches"?

LOL!

[Demo_Chris]

157. You are urging we call Sen. Warren

I assume you brought her name into this because she is generally considered a progressive fighter. She earned this reputation based upon her campaign speeches while running for office.

My response was to wait and see what she does on her own. If she supports this then we have the answer.

[ProSense]

158. No, I'm not.

"You are urging we call Sen. Warren"

She is Manny's Senator. I was urging him to call her.

"I assume you brought her name into this because she is generally considered a progressive fighter. She earned this reputation based upon her campaign speeches while running for office. "

Wrong again. I linked to an article posted today quoting her on the sequester.

"My response was to wait and see what she does on her own. If she supports this then we have the answer. "

What does that mean?

[joshcryer]

161. House Dems said is Chained CPI doesn't happen if no poverty exemption.

I'd like to believe that they stick to their guns on that one, because there's no way the Republicans vote to bring millions of seniors out of poverty (my mom being one of them). This, btw, would cover disabled veterans as well and no one on SS or SSI or SSD would ever be below the 150% poverty level.

[MineralMan]

163. Yes, you do. nt

[KoKo]

165. creepy...you really didn't "GET" Manny's post at all..

did you?

[MineralMan]

166. I got it. nt