General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Democrats plead with Obama to abandon Social Security cut
The president proposed a new formula for calculating benefits in his budget last year, in hopes that the olive branch to Republicans would persuade them to back tax increases in a broader fiscal deal.
But Democratic lawmakers say Obama should shelve the idea now that they are facing a difficult midterm election where they need to turn out the liberal base to preserve their Senate majority.
“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
Democrats acknowledge it may be awkward for Obama to rescind his proposal, but say it would unwise of him to repeat the offer in the budget that is due out next month.
http://thehill.com/news/senate/195144-senate-dems-plead-with-obama-to-abandon-social-security-cut
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Meanwhile how much tax $$ is going to "Too big to fail?"
Gordon Alf Shumway
(53 posts)It is death by 1000 cuts. The power of compounding, one diminished CPI compounded upon another, makes this the most insidious of all SS cuts!
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Baby Boomers are still many, and still legend in their ability to mobilize. This includes mobilization against a President or Congress who eat caviar while asking US to eat cat food.
Gordon Alf Shumway
(53 posts)The forces which would convince Americans that Social Security and Medicare are the source of our fiscal problems are running one of the greatest disinformation campaigns ever. The Kochs, Pete Peterson, etc are not to be underestimated.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The banks get to unload billions in investment instruments of highly questionable value, while getting cash from our government in return.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
doc03
(35,325 posts)Democratic president to abandon SS cuts and TPP (NAFTA on steroids). Strange times we live in.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Preserving the legacy of cult is more important than reality-based criticisms.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)they are not credible
bvar22
(39,909 posts)+1
The goal is not to convince anyone of anything
It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.
It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.
The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
Skittles
(153,150 posts)it is ridiculous trying to have conversations and debates with the equivalent of five year olds screaming and stamping their feet interrupting - the good news is they'll stop acting like assholes in 2017 and start seeing reality again
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Skittles
(153,150 posts)yes, Hillary will suddenly be free from any criticism 
I know people who admire her but I don't know any who think everything she does or says is perfect
polichick
(37,152 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023712142#post6
Now, how horrifying is THAT? (Thanks, bvar22.)
polichick
(37,152 posts)People tend to think it stands for something.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)What is WRONG with him? 
bonniebgood
(940 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)that posts their own misgivings about a chained CPI are just crapping all over this presidency?
This inference to crappenstance must be true since I stumbled across it in an magical realm where it is always sunny, denizens in bunny suits hop along their secure paths and any criticism of what happens in reality is a true evil.
QC
(26,371 posts)
CrispyQ
(36,460 posts)Why, yes he is!
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/02/3110541/homeless-chris-murphy/
on edit: My apologies to you Senator! Hats off to you!! 
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)If you want to be generous, let them pick their own.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But not ones that he has a fetish to implement, like cutting Social Security. That's a sickness for him.
jsr
(7,712 posts)
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Yeah. Glib, but sadly so evident.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
“I’m not sure why we should be making concessions when the Republicans show absolutely no willingness to do the same,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
Earth to Obama, can you hear me now!?
-p
FatBuddy
(376 posts)sometimes i wonder if Obama thinks this.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)FatBuddy
(376 posts)but I fear you are probably correct
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)He's been making that quite apparent.
-p
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)What's wrong with that picture?
Nay
(12,051 posts)discussed in Dem circles is a total surrender to Republicans, who would have us groveling at their feet for a crust of bread if they had any say in it.
That Dems would even give these evil bastards the time of day is an outrage.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)It looks like the next time we vote for democratic president, we need to make sure he's a democrat. 
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)CrispyQ
(36,460 posts)
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Therefore this is just political showmanship.
VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)for firing his staff.
And yet, every decision PBO makes is suspect.
Is he naive or what? When has the right EVER been true to its word on a deal?
Does he have a "I need to be needed" complex?
He has try giving them something they invented in the past and it has NEVER worked.
When will he learn?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)It will be candy for repug opponents.
This would hurt the Dems BIG time just when we need them the most.
This will get more repugs elected and we are screwed!
Nay
(12,051 posts)those pony-wanting, woo-wooing, unrealistic ultra-left hippie Lib voters who ruined it for all of us!!1!1!!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I've heard this story so often over the years here you would think it would make the accusers of falsehoods blush.
but no, they get even more ridiculous.
No, evil pResident Obama is not out to get you and old people and everyone in the 99%
lark
(23,094 posts)That's what you seem to be saying, that cut's by him don't matter and won't hurt because he's not out to get the 99%? So Obama won't be hurting impoverished seniors by reducing their social security increases, even when the cost of living goes up by a significantly greater percentage than the increase in thier checks?
How do you come by this magical thinking? How is reducing social security helping the 99%? 
Whisp
(24,096 posts)he's been cutting for years now and it's never happened.
cut cut cut
chop chop chop
starve starve starve
catfood catfood catfood
lark
(23,094 posts)He's put it forward 3 times in writing, cut- cut- cut. Fortunately for us, Repugs are so stupid they won't take yes for an answer. They want to have Obama totally kill SS so they can demonize Democrats for that and kill the party. Plus they want the increased campaign contributions from Wall St./banks for driving everyone to their risky solutions when SS is privatized. That is the end game and Obama needs to just not play. He knows damn well Repugs aren't ever going to really increase jobs or do anything good for the economy. They want failure so they can then blame Obama. Sadly, he plays the game on their turf most of the time.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They are not one tenth as credible as some guy on the Internet telling us not to worry.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a CCPI that exempts the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly AND tied to republicans significantly increasing revenue?
Why do you all always leave that part out?
But you are correct ... it's not just up to him (President Obama). So let's look at what has actually happened:
They said they wanted cuts to SS => President Obama said "Fine, here's a CCPI that exempt the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly, in exchange for significant increases in revenue."
Now let's look at how the folks in Congress reacted to the proposal.
Democrats in safe districts said, flat out, "Hell no!" Democrats in less safe districts and the Democratic leadership, said: "Let's look at everything, but before we do anything, republicans must raise revenue."
The Republicans were all over the map; but mostly were quiet, as they realized President Obama's proposal was something they couldn't address, let alone support, without facing primaries from the right (because of the increased revenue provision) and mass defections of the "Don't touch my SS" elderly.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The WH's current Chained CPI proposal exempts only those getting a means tested benefit such as Supplemental Security Insurance and SNAP benefits. Social Security is not a means tested benefit, thus it is not exempt.
The proposal includes a complicated process to increase benefits for those 75 and older, after 10 years of benefits have been received, as a theoretical balancing of the reductions done by the Chained CPI. This would apply also to disabled people after 15 years of benefits, all of this not to start until 2020 and then to be 'phased in over the next 10 years, actually deployed only after 2030.
It's all right there in English on the White House website, here's the link to make it easy for you to learn the actual facts. Because yours are too incorrect to bother refuting.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what about the other part of my statement? Here, I'll pull it from your link:
•The change is part of a balanced deficit reduction package that includes substantial revenue raised through tax reform.
•It is coupled with measures to protect the vulnerable and avoid increasing poverty and hardship.
So what happens when the republicans DON"T provide the substantial revenue raised through tax reform?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)tried to tie SS to the Deficit. Here is the question:
Explain how cutting SS benefits in ANY way, and CPI IS a cut as has now been established beyond a doubt, REDUCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET'S deficit?? How can cutting benefits from what is a dedicated fund already paid for, think of a pension fund, an insurance fund which has zero to do with the Fed Budget, in any way help to reduce the deficit in a totally SEPARATE fund?
I just can't get an answer to that question from those who support these egregious proposals.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I do not support any cuts to SS ... unless we're talking capping it for the wealthy, dollar for dollar above the payroll cap (IOW, the wealth get out what they paid in, no more). However, I DO support the strategy because it is a gambit with ZERO shot at becoming law; but what it DOES do/HAS a shot to do is highlight once again (and just in time for 2014) the gop's constant obstruction, even on stuff they asked for. IOW, it gives the electorate a picture of what it wants ... a government of folks willing to work together to get stuff done.
But that said ... you are quite right, SS has nothing to do with the federal debt/deficit; but let's face it, that is/will be almost impossible to get the average voter to understand. Most peoples' understanding of the world is informed by their real life experience. People know that money is fungible ... the money set aside to pay the mortgage/rent, can also be, and in tight times, is used to pay the electric bill or to get the car repaired, whether that money comes from Partner A's paycheck or Partner B's. That is what makes the republican "Kitchen Table/Household Budget" narrative so effective ... people understand it.
With regard to SS ... In their mind, it's all money controlled by the "government", and it doesn't matter whether that money is held in the left pocket or the right.
So why is SS a part of the debt/deficit conversation?
Because the gop, knowing that the majority of the electorate applies "Kitchen Table/Household Budget" understanding of the world around them; but none-the-less want their government to get stuff done, has put it there. And, in a divided government, whatever either side demands be on the table must be on the table (even if nothing is done about it) ... or nothing gets done. And, the side that refused to have that thing on the table is the side that gets the public's blame.
Though I don't suspect that you will agree ... I would hope that you take a moment to attempt to understand, an answer to the question you asked.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)should ever use SS as a bargaining chip. I believe in politicians clearly stating the facts. To even 'play along' for political purposes is a dangerous game to play, especially with ruthless individuals whose MO is to deprive the people of their rights, all of their rights. Imo, you do not engage in their deceptive games as doing so only increases the public's misperceptions.
What we need to disabuse the misconceptions about SS is NOT confirmation of them, but clear statements explaining why they are so incorrect.
I'm a fan of truth. And I do think you underestimate the public in general's ability to separate the lies from the facts. When Dems play these games, assuming they are only playing, they are presenting public agreement with the lies the Right Wing has been telling about SS for so long. This hasn't happened before as far as I know.
Also, I have no idea if that is what they are doing, just playing a game. It doesn't matter, I have to then argue with Democrats, when before it was only the far right, about the facts about SS. Because these games cause some Democrats to try to defend them meaning, by playing these games, the Dems have done what should be impossible, convinced some on the Left that cutting SS benefits is not really all that bad and I can show you right here on DU, argue that the CPI is not cuts, and that SS IS connected to the deficit.
The truth never changes so sticking to it never runs the risk of spreading, even if by accident, false impressions that become almost impossible to overcome.
Just tell the truth, that is all we ask.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is (and I mean this with all due respect) I see things as they are; whereas, you seem to see things the way you wish they were/are. When has a politician ever politicians clearly stated the facts?
Unless, or until, human nature changes, the "game" of politics will remain a "game" of strategy, focused on attaining power ... not truth.
That's the point ... SS IS connected to the debt/deficit, in the minds of the average voter because their life experience tells them that money is fungible, so money spent on SS is money that can't be spent on other priorities ... and republicans capitalize on this.
While it may be a good long-term strategy to educate the masses as to the unrelatedness of SS and the debit/deficit ... it is poor immediate-term strategy ... remember, the most of the electorate don't understand economics, and are more concerned with feeding their family, than making an attempt ... they "know" when they owe any amount of money, and another bill is coming due; something has to give ... that is their life.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)about Obama's ideas to cut social security.... or his offer of chained CPI for the most vulnerable of our citizens.
(Actually....I didn't GO to the Obama forum: the thread got on the greatest page, and I commented on it, not realizing I was breaking rules. I don't always check which forum a Greatest Page thread comes from. Seems like once a thread gets on greatest page, there should be new rules or something. )
Scuba
(53,475 posts)loudsue
(14,087 posts)
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 09:56 AM - Edit history (1)
loudsue
(14,087 posts) bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and completely ignored by the vast majority of DUers.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)cuz President Obama is stinking up the place ... all by his self. Just look at all the crappy laws he his authored and signed into law and look at all the progressive legislation that he has vetoed!
Yep ... DemocraticUnderground needs a forum dedicated to bashing this Democratic, failure of a president!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)By no stretch of the most fevered imagination can that be considered Democratic.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"execute" enemy combatants (that happen to be U.S. citizens), working with other, but foreign enemy combatants, outside of U.S. jurisdiction, where the local jurisdiction is either unable or unwilling to capture, said enemy combatant.
And BTW, President Obama isn't the first (and won't be the last) President to do so. That might not be "Democratic", but that is the way of war.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)as long as he calls them an "enemy combatant" first.
Good for you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm okay with the President of the U.S. ordering the military to kill someone/anyone that he (with the counsel of military intelligence) determines poses a threat to the U.S., where that person is actively working with our enemies and is located outside of the U.S. and the local government proves unable or unwilling to bring that person to justice.
That is what happens in military conflict.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)1. The people Obama kills are a threat to the U.S.
2. Those people are actively working with our "enemies"
3. Being located outside the U.S. somehow nullifies a citizen's constitutional rights
Please explain how any of these things apply to our killing of a 16 year old boy, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the stated criteria for drone targeting.
When one chooses to actively plot, in concert with identified enemy combatants, in a foreign land, to carry out the killing of non-military connected U.S. citizens, they become an enemy combatant ... and, cannot hide behind the U.S. Constitution.
Regarding Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, it is my understanding that he was not the person being targeted, though at the time of the drone attack, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki may, or may not, have been in the company of the targeted person.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Their track record for integrity is...not good.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)That's the truth of it. How do you win a war against terror? You don't, there is no possible end-point other than voluntary cessation. No enemy to surrender or to defeat. It's a series of mostly unconnected attacks against people we decide are enemy combatants, not a war, and few of the dead are actually deserving of their fate.
That's my opinion, but we'll never know for sure, since there is no trial, no evidence presented, no jury, no oversight by anyone that has any authority. In my book it's murder, and I think it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to see it any other way. If it stills seems murky to you, it's informative to recall how we felt about this policy when Bush was POTUS.
Obama didn't start this, Bush did, at least the drone killings. But we didn't elect Obama to continue this policy, nor to legitimize it in any way. Which he has done, aggressively.
Would this kind of criticism get someone kicked out of the BOG? I don't hang out there so don't know, but it seems to me that while we should support Obama against Republicans, we should never support him against the truth, which is that innocent people we know nothing about are trembling in fear as they go to bed not knowing if they and their loved ones will be murdered in their sleep by an unseen drone.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I continue to ask for someone to identify a workable alternative. 
Further, I note that we only have the luxury of pondering/questioning this tactic/strategy because the program has worked to prevent attacks here.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Without the sarcasm tag, that is.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Be brave, do a poll on President Obamas wanting changes to SS.
Double dog dare you, whatever that means.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)every 2 months or so, someone will post the obligatory, "This time he really is coming for SS" thread, and DUers will do their reactionary freak out ... like clock work.
None of which remotely considers what is going on ... that the CCPI (and any idea of cuts to SS) is/was a non-starter from its inception
But what it DOES/DID do is put the gop in a real bind.
Let's look at what has actually happened:
They said they wanted cuts to SS => President Obama said "Fine, here's a CCPI that exempt the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly, in exchange for significant increases in revenue."
Now let's look at how the folks in Congress reacted to the proposal.
Democrats in safe districts said, flat out, "Hell no!" Democrats in less safe districts and the Democratic leadership, said: "Let's look at everything, but before we do anything, republicans must raise revenue."
The Republicans were all over the map; but mostly were quiet, as they realized President Obama's proposal was something they couldn't address, let alone support, without facing primaries from the right (because of the increased revenue provision) and mass defections of the "Don't touch my SS" elderly.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Then there is President Obamas reputation for negotiation. Doesn't seem to have a good handle on it. Thinks starting by giving the opposition half of what they want will cause them to give you half of what you want, never seems to work for him.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama has a firm grasp on negotiations. First, unless you are a part of the "all or nothing" crowd, what "deal" has President Obama (or, more accurately, the American people) came out on the losing end?
And in the longer view ... Starting at "giving the opposition half of what they want" has caused "non-partisans" and "lesser politically engaged" voters (i.e., the majority of the electorate) to see the grid-lock in Congress in terms of President Obama being the "reasonable" party; whereas, the gop the party of "Obstruction." And since this cohort values just getting stuff done, more than partisan point scoring, how do you think they will vote in 2014 ... for the reasonable one trying to get something done, or the ones just saying NO?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Who do I think they will vote for? Like the Democrats that are running I think they will vote for the party that isn't actively trying to cut Social Security.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I realize that the majority of the electorate want their Congress folks to get something done. President Obama has positioned the Democratic Party as the reasonable ones, seeking to get something done; whereas, the gop is assigned as the party of no ... even to their own ideas (e.g., the CCPI).
This is where the "Left" is shooting us/themselves in the foot ... President Obama isn't "actively trying to cut SS." By promoting the narrative of CCPI without the "exemptions for the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly AND, tied to the republicans raising taxes" part, misleads the electorate into believing that President Obama is "actively trying to cut SS" ... nothing is further from the truth since the republicans can't address, let alone support, the CCPI without being primaried from the right and seeing mass defections of their "don't touch my SS" elderly.
tjl148
(185 posts)Why do you continue to use the "CCPI that exempt poor etc" when you already agreed that this was incorrect? The problem with the President's position is that it does not help the poor and elderly. So if the Republicans take him up on the offer - then what do we tell the them? Oops, the gambit failed and you are checkmated. He should not have even started down that path. IMHO
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Now address the pre-condition and its likelihood of being met by the Senate and/or the House.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Only those in complete Obama-lust need be ignored. Their adoration is pointless and without moral center. it only serves to gum up discussion and progress.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts) blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)I agree.
If no discussion is allowed,
it shouldn't be on the DU Greatest Page.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)like you have just now ...
President Obama's offer of the CCPI specifically exempts the most vulnerable of our citizens.
Broward
(1,976 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)exempting the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly AND tied to significant increases in revenue through taxing the wealthy and corporations ... Yes, I would support the proposal.
And yes ... I supported it when he proposed it because I believe it was a great strategic move, that stood no chance of advancing; but put republicans in a really bad spot.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)The bottom 10 or 20 are okay or maybe need a little boost but everyone else is getting too much. That is your argument, right?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My argument is, and has always been, that the CCPI (and any idea of cuts to SS) is/was a non-starter from its inception
But what it DOES/DID do is put the gop in a real bind.
Let's look at what has actually happened:
They said they wanted cuts to SS => President Obama said "Fine, here's a CCPI that exempt the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly, in exchange for significant increases in revenue."
Now let's look at how the folks in Congress reacted to the proposal.
Democrats in safe districts said, flat out, "Hell no!" Democrats in less safe districts and the Democratic leadership, said: "Let's look at everything, but before we do anything, republicans must raise revenue."
The Republicans were all over the map; but mostly were quiet, as they realized President Obama's proposal was something they couldn't address, let alone support, without facing primaries from the right (because of the increased revenue provision) and mass defections of the "Don't touch my SS" elderly
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)The rest is song and dance to justify the basic premise, there is enough fat for most people to absorb a cut from their Social Security benefits for a bargain that doesn't provide a dime to those taking the hit nor do proposals offset other places.
If this is an argument asserting it is okay because it is gamesmanship, then what do we win? If we "won" then why would elected officials be begging for the offer to be pulled post victory? What is the benefit here? Even if one buys this whole tired game proposition, why give them anything if they are the ones wanting cuts? Make them propose their own offer and hang them on it instead of negotiating with your self in a game of gotcha that seems weak at best in "getting" anyone.
I also don't grasp the defensive arguing, if the whole thing is some crafty machinations then does it not absolutely require spirited push back for the act to be plausible? Why isn't the defense brigade rubbing their hands together in glee at the plan going as foreseen rather than the constant defense and call outs for those playing the role Obama cast them in as he calculated all the varibles?
I'm also failing to see any bind. This bullshit has been going back and forth for years now and I've yet to see an iota of trouble for the TeaPubliKlans, in fact they can just point to the proposal and the waters are muddied up good so some portion of the electorate is left under the impression that both parties want to cut Social Security and goes into "a pox on both their houses" mode because everyone is on record for cuts and/or has a mile long track record of pushing cuts with nary a soul swearing they will be damned before our benefits are cut.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)anything I've written?
We "win" the support of the majority of the electorate that sees this proposal as a sign that President Obama (and the Democrats) are the "reasonable" parties, seeking to get s0omething done, even if it means compromising ... Check the polling data on compromise/obstruction.
Yes ... and the "Left" is playing their part. I would think that partisans (those of us that frequent political discourse) would appreciate an explanation on how what they think is not necessarily what is happening. Though I would hate it if the explanation quieted the "left's" out-rage ... the strategy would be far less effective.
It's a shame that the gop sees the trap laid; but the "Left" cannot ... Why do you think the gop (for the most part) has avoided any discussion of the CCPI? Could it be that they know that with any discussion, they would have to choose between: supporting the CCPI (to get movement on "entitlements) along with the increases in revenue ... thereby guaranteeing a primary fight from the right, and getting push-back from their seniors; and, opposing the revenue increases and getting no movement on entitlements ... thereby guaranteeing a primary fight from deficit hawks, but keeping their seniors.
Broward
(1,976 posts)First, I think it's completely wrongheaded and dangerous to be playing politics with Social Security. However, setting that aside for a moment, please help me understand how this turns into a political positive for Dems. People of all political stripes are overwhelmingly opposed to any cuts. Now, Republicans can turn around and say that Dems, including Obama, support cutting Social Security.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)like "death panels", they just make stuff up.
Anyway, Social Security was created and has been altered by politicians. If you have a miracle cure for politicians altering political programs, you should let the politicians know. If you don't, then you will have to continue to believe that government should keep it's hands off your Social Security.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and supporting the President, they will always choose the latter.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I take the White House as the expert on what the White House is proposing. What you are saying up and down this thread is false. Social Security and Veterans beneficiaries will be included in Chained CPI. Obama has a strange proposal to 'balance' that by slowly adding enhancements to benefits for the very elderly, 75 and older, to be phased in over 10 years staring in 2020.
It's all right there on the President's own website, he pitches hard for this bullshit.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Everyone gets cuts. The poorest also get slight bumps in benefits every few years, but still they have a net loss equal to a few meals per month.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Now address the pre-condition and its likelihood of being met by the Senate and/or the House.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Ducking like that will cause you whiplash.
First you accuse a DU'er of false narrative. Then you post a false narrative about how the cuts won't hurt anyone that matters. Then when called on it, you just do an "okay" and then try to change the subject and direction. All without ever answering whether you believe that Obama's proposal is a good thing, whether you agree with the cuts he offers.
So do you agree with his proposal that the poor have to give up some stuff or not. Real simple. Do you like the ideas or not?
Commence obfuscation and ducking.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I do not believe that "the poor (should) have to give up stuff." And, No ... I do not believe like that idea. There ... I have answered you simply and directly.
But, as with most things in real life, things are not so simple ... So my more involved (and more accurate) response includes the proposition that I do not believe that President Obama's proposal calls for that for two reasons: first, because (as I have been corrected) the CCPI does not apply to means-tested programs (i.e., the poor) ... so the poor, in every category of people "that matter", are exempted. Is that not true and correct?
{Now if you wish to argue that CCPI should not be applied to ANYONE ... then, that's a different discussion entirely.}
And secondly, but more importantly as to make the first matter moot, the CCPI doesn't have a shot in hell of passing because President Obama's proposal places as a pre-condition, to any CCPI consideration, that the republicans provide "significant revenue" through tax reform. Is that not true and correct?
Now, explain how the republican controlled House would pass such a Bill, where they get a CCPI; but have to increase taxes on the wealthy and/or corporations. (Not gonna happen) And, explain how the Democratic controlled Senate would pass such a Bill, where we do anything to SS. (republicans won't/can't give enough in terms of increased revenue.)
Now, to address your simplistic summation of events ...
I'm not duck anything. My false narrative "accusation" is accurate ... casting this as "the poor giving up stuff" (with "poor" defined as in, or eligible for, means-tested programs) is NOT true or correct. And the narrative is made more untrue and more incorrect when you/he(she) leave out the pre-condition that the republicans give significant revenue through tax reform. Unless you wish to argue that providing a description of something, while leaving out important defining features of that thing can be termed a true statement.
You can call my response obfuscation or ducking or whatever you wish ... But you CANNOT call it untrue or incorrect.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)the party line in there .
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)I forget what I even said now. I made the mistake of not reading first which forum I was responding into, and only responded to the headline of the OP on the front page. I thought at the time it was a very innocuous comment and I was surprised to get my first ever ban since joining DU almost 10 years ago.
That's fine, I don't begrudge those starry eyed personality cultists their home forum. I stick to the reality based forums anyways.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I am so sick of this game he plays with the Republicans
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)There's no one twisting his arm in this interview that took place before he even entered office. It's certainly a far cry from what he said just months before, on the campaign trail:
Full interview Here
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He gives them whatever they want, bit by bit. And they obstruct everything he does. They get permanent this, and he gets temporary that.
The things he gives them are things they have wanted for decades and decades, but they don't dare because it would be political suicide for them.
The GOP tried to get SS when Bush was president, but failed. Obama offers it to them.
It is a twisted game. Divide by zero chess.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)political suicide for them.
Thats exactly how Bill Clinton acted as President.
He gave the conservatives welfare reform that effectively ended welfare, NAFTA, telecom deregulation, banking deregulation (including Glass-Steagall), the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, .....and too much else to write.
Its like Democrats cant be allowed to occupy the WH unless they've promised to fulfill the existing wants of the GOP.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Clinton walked all over the GOP, he didn't offer up grand bargain austerity nonsense and permanent SS cuts. The sequestration is another bad example. Most of the 'unthinkable' things in that deal have been on the GOP wish list for decades. The military cuts they can easily get reversed by screaming 'weak on defense!'. They play him like a puppet.
Glass Steagall is a moot point because it passed with a veto-proof majority. A lot of the other things you point out are definitely true.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)
[font size=4]*No Cuts to Social Security
*No Raising the Retirement Age
*Raise-the-Cap on FICA contributions
[/font]
Do you think he would have been elected if he had said he was going to Cut SS Benefits?
It took a Nixon to go to China.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)"Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill."
What do you think he meant by "tweaked"?????
I think we all know.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Direct quote from Candidate Obama 2008:
or raise the retirement age.
Now, Let me be clear. I will NOT do either."
---[/font]exact quote, Candidate Obama, Campaign 2008
Gee. What do you think he meant by that?
And THEN, remember this fight with Hillary during the debates
when Candidate Obama championed Raise-the-Cap???
Whatever happened to that guy?
If I were Hillary, I would be really pissed.
First, he passed her Health Care Plan (Mandates with NO Public Option),
and THEN took her position on Social Security (no raising taxes on the RICH) the day AFTER the Campaign was over.
I would be furious.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)how do you explain that?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I didn't go on TV and make those promises to the American Working Class.
Candidate Obama did.
He needs to explain it.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
MiniMe
(21,714 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)What a bunch of callous, self centered assholes.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)For decades now they have acted as if they were entitled to our vote.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I was starting to wonder when this particular DU freak out would return.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)But I think we should all freak out just as if it has happened all of the other times DU has freaked out about this topic.
Its become sort of a DU tradition.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)it does no good to freak out after it happens. freaking out BEFORE it happens is exacatly what is needed
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)It would be one thing if people in these threads were concerned and suggesting people contact their representatives and remind them where we stand on this topic.
But that really isn't what happens in these threads.
With all of the gnashing of teeth, one might assume that this administration has cut social security 15 times now.
And this time will be the same as all of the others.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)He was the one that offered it. You know that, right?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what President Obama's offer was ...
Oh, that's right ... a CCPI that specifically exempted the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly AND tied to the gop raising tax rates.
Yeah, must remember to thank the gop for doing what they weren't going to do in the first place.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when you exempt the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly, who does it leave as the affected group?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)you must agree CCPI is not a good thing for the President to support if ANY SS-recipients are impacted - right?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if the CCPI had a shot in heck of becoming law ... but it doesn't.
But what it DOES do is put the gop in a real bind.
Let's look at what has actually happened:
They said they wanted cuts to SS => President Obama said "Fine, here's a CCPI that exempt the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly, in exchange for significant increases in revenue."
Now let's look at how the folks in Congress reacted to the proposal.
Democrats in safe districts said, flat out, "Hell no!" Democrats in less safe districts and the Democratic leadership, said: "Let's look at everything, but before we do anything, republicans must raise revenue."
The Republicans were all over the map; but mostly were quiet, as they realized President Obama's proposal was something they couldn't address, let alone support, without facing primaries from the right (because of the increased revenue provision) and mass defections of the "Don't touch my SS" elderly
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Chained CPI is deader than a doornail. The GOP demanded it, then when the President said "Okay, I'll consider it in exchange for higher taxes on the rich", they tried to attack him over considering their demand.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You do know that was President Obamas starting position, don't you? You must have a different opinion of his negotiating skills than I do.
The only time President Obama came out ahead was when he didn't negotiate. We seem to be better off when he does nothing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)where the American people came out on the losing side of the deal. You do realize that getting nothing is worse than getting some, right?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the gop giving significant revenues through tax reform?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Just as the ACA was the wet dream of the insurance and medical industry, Chained CPI is the wet dream of banking and finance.
We pass Chained CPI and Social Security will be privatized within a decade tops. That's what Chained CPI does, it removes any incentive NOT to privatize it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)You act like the response is totally out of the blue, just an outrage widget formed from nothing when the administration keeps pushing it.
Stop fucking whining about the fire trucks coming when you pull the fire alarm. The proposal demands push back anytime it is mentioned, don't want hair on fire then stop the sparking.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)it doesn't happen? Are you saying they should shut up? What exactly is "freaking out" in your world? Discussing a topic?
Maybe you are right maybe we should all just SFTU and trust our politicians not to screw us...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... don't ya think?
Which is what we usually see in these threads.
These threads, which occur about quarterly or so, are always little more than complain-a-thons.
They are like the "Obama is going to invade Syria and start an Iraq style war" threads we had a few months back.
The difference is that the SS threads repeat over and over every few months or so.
They pop-up, lots of screaming ("pleading" in this case), nothing happens, it blows over. Until the next one.
We had a set of them right before the government shut down. Obama was going to cave and cut Social security then. And during every debt ceiling fight. And every 3rd Tuesday in the slow news summer.
You can almost set your watch by it.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)it would stop a lot of hand wringing. However he does not say this, which makes people think that cuts could still happen. And while for you they may not mean much but for others their very survival depends on S.S. which is probably why they "plead".
Yeah it does sound desperate, because people are desperate not to lose what little they have.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Or to members of my family.
They used the word "plead" specifically because it adds an extra emotional element to make the cuts sound more imminent.
And, Social Security exists, the GOP hates it, so its always on the table.
Allowing the GOP to come out and try to take a bite out of it makes political sense. Let them put down, in numbers, what they'd "offer" for such cuts. They can't do it. They know its suicide.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)In hopes that Republicans are not stupid enough to commit suicide. Great plan.. really. It's not like Republicans would do something to commit suicide, like close a bridge or anything like that.
IMHO the reason that S.S. cuts have not happened is because in spite of your vitriol towards anyone who does so, people keep screaming and pleading to make sure the Democrats know we won't stand for it.
I really don't see why this bothers you so much. It's just people demanding they be heard. Isn't this what Democracy is all about?
rpannier
(24,329 posts)That he omit it?
That he not post it?
What is your objection?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)manipulate outrage on the left.
DU explodes on this topic every couple months ... and has done so since Obama took office. Honestly, I'd argue that George Bush's calls to privatize Social Security got less of a response.
Keeping the left fighting with itself is a media strategy. And DU falls for it regularly.
You'd think that after the last 10 or 15 times of this, folks would start to catch on.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)I thought you were irritated at the OP for having included the word in the title
Your point is taken
Thanks for the quick and civil response
Whisp
(24,096 posts)time is ticking, something horrible and evil has to actually stick to the President.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And you are right ... they are running out of evil things.
It was LGBT rights ... he was never going to advance those.
Stimulus was going to fail ... nope.
Double dip recession was imminent every summer in his first term ... nope.
Bush's tax cuts for top 2% were going to be extended forever ... nope.
He was never going to leave Iraq ... wrong again.
We was going to start Iraq style wars in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iran ... nope, nope, nope, and nope.
So what are we left with ... imminent cuts to Social Security.
So imminent, they are about to happen every couple months since 2009 ... nope, nope, nope, nope ... so on.
But here they come again.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)instead of a bunch of nonsense games that don't buy us shit.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'll refrain from doing that.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This topic is a perennial outrage topic around here.
It'll dust up for a while, lots of outraged OPs and responses, then drop, just like every other time.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But thanks anyway for the suggestion. You are most considerate.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I have to ask ... did you agree with that other OP who suggests DUers put people on their jury blacklist?
That behavior, creating a blacklist, sounds kind of authoritarian to me.
No matter.
This entire thread will go into the "OMG, Obama is about to cut Social Security" archive, with all of the others.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Are you saying Skinner and Earl and Elad are authoritarians? It is they who suggested the use of their own invention, the jury blacklist, a component of the jury system of which they are very proud.
I think you should send Skinner a whiney PM about it. Let him know how outraged you are with the tools they offer to DU posters, do it like you do these 'stop discussing politics' rants of yours hair ablaze and trotting madly about. Let me know what he says.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) 
G_j
(40,367 posts)date of the posted article... EOM
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Benghazi, IRS ... hey, Obama is gonna cut Social Security!
G_j
(40,367 posts)Democrats were bringing this up to help Christie. ..right
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Did you notice in the article, when they refer to "supporters" of chained CPI ... they don't actually name any.
I mean, how many Dems are actually out there calling for any cut to Social Security. And I'm not asking about saying things like "entitlement reform" ... I mean actually calling for cuts.
Its not really happening.
Now, some Dems like this "controversy" hanging around, because for their base, from their states, its a hot button issue. So, from time to time, they talk about the "protect SS" line. They dare Republicans to bite. Smart move.
But the media, trying to help the GOP, positions this as a fight between the Dems, giving the GOP a pass.
This is a fairly common media tactic. Take the recent Iran negotiations. The GOP (all of it) wants tougher sanctions. A couple Dems have joined that side, mainly to get some extra APAIC money. Does the media say the GOP wants war? Nope ... they focus on that handful of Dems and claim the fight is Obama versus the Dems.
The media is very good at giving the right, and the left, a reason to be angry with the Obama administration.
This is another great example ... I loved the use of the word "plead" in the title ... sounds so terribly desperate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it has been a whole 2 months (by my reckoning)!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Na, that's not going to be predicted ever again I don't think.
Hey ... on edit ... do you think any of these folks have noticed that the economic situation has improved a great deal since they first started pushing this particular meme.
I mean, if the President really had wanted to make these cuts, far better opportunities existed back in 2009 and 2010.
Hell, he could have put it in the stimulus and gotten the GOP to agree. And most Americans probably would have accepted it as "necessary" to help prevent the 2nd great Depression.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in all of these "he DID offer up the CCPI" posts, the posters neglect to point out that the proposal exempted the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly AND was tied, as a pre-condition, to the gop significantly increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations?
Wonder way that is?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Most seem unable to contemplate that maybe there is a political game being played here.
President dangles a carrot in front of the GOP, daring them to try and take it. Meanwhile, other Dem representatives pound the GOP if they even look at the carrot. This puts the GOP in a bind. Its a political winner for the Dems.
Na ... can't be that ... gotta be that Obama has a secret evil plan to kill granny, just not the same secret plan to kill granny that the Tea party claims.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)only to be ignored.
Think about it ... nothing CAN happen with SS cuts; who would actually vote for it, especially if it is tied to republicans agreeing to increases in revenue?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)one of the things you notice is that when the authors mention "supporters" of cutting SS via chained CPI, they don't name a single one ... because they can't. Its not a real part of anyone actual agenda, except on the GOP side.
As I've been saying for years now ... its not happening ... and it will continue to be a point of manufactured outrage that repeats itself, until Obama leaves office.
And then, it'll probably become a point of outrage with President Clinton.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)except for, maybe, the most extreme of republicans. How could they ... too many of their "go to" base would scream bloody murder.
There is a reason, the only ones talking about any possibility of cuts to SS is coming from liberals
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Do something useful and research the answer to your question. You obviously don't have a clue what's going on. There are many democrats, on record, in support of chained CPI.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Like whom?
Democrats in safe districts said, flat out, "Hell no!" Democrats in less safe districts and the Democratic leadership, said: "Let's look at everything, but before we do anything, republicans must raise revenue."
That's a long way from support of CCPI, especially in an environment where no one believes that the gop will raise revenue to a level that Democrats would even consider acting on the CCPI.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Increasing taxes, putting it into jobs for younger folks, continuing unemployment benefits and food stamps, etc. -- while exempting any impact on poor, veterans, disabled and very elderly -- would be better for all of us, especially the younger folks who will be paying our SS for the next 30 years. In fact, the so-called "catfood commission" recommended increasing SS payments for those on the low end of the scale.
So it is not some dire proposal which will sink us all. SS needs some tweaks. Better now under a Democrat than waiting until it hits the fan, perhaps under Ryan or some other white wing ass. Yes, raising the cap will help, but it won't solve the entire problem.
I think it's a fair trade-off short-term AND puts the spotlight on the Republican obstructionism. I'm not going to lynch Obama over this bull.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)CCPI proposal put the gop in.
They said they wanted cuts to SS => President Obama said "Fine, here's a CCPI that exempt the poor, veterans, the disabled and the elderly, in exchange for significant increases in revenue."
Now let's look at how the folks in Congress reacted to the proposal.
Democrats in safe districts said, flat out, "Hell no!" Democrats in less safe districts and the Democratic leadership, said: "Let's look at everything, but before we do anything, republicans must raise revenue."
The Republicans were all over the map; but mostly were quiet, as they realized President Obama's proposal was something they couldn't address, let alone support, without facing primaries from the right (because of the increased revenue provision) and mass defections of the "Don't touch my SS" elderly.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Maybe he shouldn't have asked for a job can can't do.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)far better than most in this century has.
And by the way, I notice that your post, in all it's mockingness, completely failed to respond to what was written ... but I suppose, that's par for your course.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)gasping how the President is about to kill granny and place them on a time line.
The GOP is upset about all the Christie coverage, so they scream "but Benghazi!!" ... "but IRS!!" ... and parts of the left ... "Arrrgh Social Security Cuts!!!"
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Have I ever mentioned that our party sucks, it just sucks a little bit less than the other party, just enough to compel me to vote for these clowns.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)“I think it’s difficult for the president to pull it back after he already floated it but I would love to see it shelved until Republicans show they’re actually going to do something on their side of the ledger,” Murphy said.
<...>
“I certainly hope that the president has learned a lesson from this whole process,” Sanders said. “To be honest with you, I just can’t imagine what staff people gave him the disastrous advice to propose a chain CPI, which from both a public policy point of view and political point of view is totally absurd.”
“He should recognize that was a mistake. It should not be in his budget at all,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
...it should be shelved altogether. This is preemptive, as it's not known if the President will propose this in the up-coming budget.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
ananda
(28,858 posts)What about the poor Seniors who desperately need that money?
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)they can win elections. the real motivation...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Oh silly me ...they don't need to be worried about getting corporate 3rd way right leaning dino centrist votes.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)He'll have the perfect excuse to give the GOP everything they want all at once.
And posters at THIS site will still defend him.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
FlyByNight
(1,756 posts)...Social Security cuts (or however Pres. Obama euphemizes them) shouldn't be on the table AT ALL.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)help the budget?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)They'll just sharpen it and stab him with it.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)This is truly like a dysfunctional marriage.
The American people are against cuts in social security.
Why can't Obama stand up against the pugs???
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Because they both want the same thing.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Trillion$ for bogus wars,
Billion$ to bail out banksters and Wall Street conartists,
...but we have to cut Social Security?
Why?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)A man's gotta get payed.
-p
polichick
(37,152 posts)ladywnch
(2,672 posts)so he made an offer to the rethugs.......so what......he can retract it.......rethugs have been 'compromising' for years now. They claim they'll go along with a compromise .......they get what they want......and then they renege on their compromise......it's SOP.
So why can't Obama do the same thing........lure the rethugs to agree to the budget and then change his mind once they agree......problem solved.
Virture with rethugs is a waste of energy
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)ladywnch
(2,672 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)making it seem to be in trouble. imo that was part of a plan to cut it back.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)That congress writes the laws not the president.....
Of course our ignorant public even here on DU who have no idea how laws are passed will predictably blame obama for anything in any law they dont like. God forbid we put the blame where it belongs.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The ability to get legislation moved through Congress is the defining element of Presidential success or failure in every administration. That's just how it is.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Ruled by predators.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Every few months or so, it appears Obama has cut Social Security.
When will it ever stop?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)over, and over, and over, and over again.
Maybe that's why these Democratic Senators are concerned? Or are they just wild-eyed crazies parroting a right-wing meme?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)the hard Right, and we'll all get the blame before, during, and after the trouncing at the polls in Nov. 11-Dimensional Chess at its deceptive finest.
MineralMan
(146,287 posts)make it into the budget. Perhaps it's not really a serious proposal. The Congress writes the budget, anyhow, not the President.
How many times has this been discussed on DU, I wonder, and for how many years?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)MineralMan
(146,287 posts)What's it tied to. Remember, it has been used to push the Republicans before. They aren't biting.
Only Congress can create a budget bill.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Sheesh.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)serious proposals? That's called 'bad faith negotiation', it makes the Party look willing to cut benefits, gives the other side rhetorical fodder and political footing to make those cuts in the future. So what's the objective of constantly floating bogus proposals? What do Democrats get from this repeated proposal?
It's been discussed each time it's been proposed, so the root question is why it proposed? What's the reason? What do we, the People, gain from such bullshit politics? It's a shameful, ugly offer to make. So why make it over and over and over and over?
MineralMan
(146,287 posts)Strategist. I do know that we don't have chained CPI. That, despite all of the furor.
.....eom
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)
malthaussen
(17,187 posts)They couldn't care less about Social Security. They just worry it will make them look bad.
Exceptions apply, of course, but I find it hard to feel sympathy for some of these people.
-- Mal
rtracey
(2,062 posts)President Obama may need to really sit and think hard about his final term in office. If the Senate goes right wing, I guarantee the ACA will be completely gutted COMPLETELY. I also believe this country will suffer the worse drop in employment in decades if this Senate goes right. Please think twice about giving the right the ammo Mr. President.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and let him get on with his "nth" dimensional chessplaying that nobody but he understands.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)we are witnessing throughout this thread:
"It's always on the table, and nothing ever happens!"
What a reeking load of bullshit. The manipulative threat of cutting Social Social Security is precisely *the reason* that corporate Democrats have been able to inflict crushing austerity on Americans as effectively as they have. Without the threatened axe of Social Security cuts (which kept returning as the austerity kept escalating), they would never have been able to sell the vicious budget and social program cuts they HAVE inflicted on Americans...by justifying them as the lesser of two evils.
If you had told us a few years ago that the Barack Obama administration would be presiding over government spending that assaults the poor even more viciously than the RYAN plan, we would never have believed it. Yet that is exactly where we found ourselves, surrounded by corporate mouthpieces exhorting us to be grateful, "because he didn't cut Social Security."
The cuts are in his budget. They *will* happen when the Third Way is finished using the threat of them to justify and implement all these other, very real, assaults.
The Third Way are vicious, manipulative, Koch-funded vipers who have pulled this government and this party so far right over the past five years that the middle class is eviscerated. And now we have the Orwellian spectacle of a Democratic President making pretty speeches about income inequality while simultaneously presenting a budget to steal the subsistence checks of the poor, *and* fast-tracking a "trade agreement" that will hand national sovereignty to the corporations that will finish us off.
These are not "centrists." These are corporatists hell-bent on looting this country into destruction.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Broward
(1,976 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that's kinda what I was thinking when posting my arcastic remark.
His "inequality" efforts do stand in sharp contrast to his SS cuts, and it boggles the mind that either he doesn't see it, or that he thinks others won't.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)CPI or some other cut to Social Security in the budget, Mr. President. And don't use the excuse that the Republicans put it in. I will not vote for any representative or senator who votes for a reduction in Social Security benefits. No way.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)All the waffling about how it would never pass is totally irrelevant.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Has the President even seriously discussed this lately? After the shutdown I wouldn't think he'd give a tinker's damn about what Republicans want.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)and that's what Democrats are asking him to do.
gulliver
(13,180 posts)Any who voted Republican or failed to vote Democratic deserve what they get. It's too bad they can't be separated out from the others and punished exclusively. Seniors who vote Republican especially need to receive a message.
I imagine the chained CPI supposedly proposed by Obama is actually being proposed as a bargaining chip to Republicans. That makes it a Republican proposal unless it can be shown that Republicans are somehow against it. And since Republican and other non-Democratic voting seniors are the power behind the Republicans, they have only themselves to blame.
We would not have this problem if people had done their duty and voted Democratic down the line in 2010. Again, the chained CPI thing isn't going to happen.
meti57b
(3,584 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)They are doing the same thing to SS that they did to education. Why cut it when you can just stop spending increases for a few decades? Has the same effect and yet you can claim you never cut it. And both republicans and democrats are guilty on this one.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)and then say you didn't mean it. And do you trust the Republicans to turn down the offer? It only takes one instance to change everything.
President Obama is a good man but he is too trusting of Republicans.
walkingman
(7,599 posts)and unless something has changed I doubt that he understands that SS is one of the bedrocks of the Democratic Party. He knows that regardless of what he does the contrast between GOP and Dem is so large that most people who traditionally vote progressive would never vote Rethuglican.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)he's not as smart as we think he is
INdemo
(6,994 posts)many times in his stump speeches on the campaign. Typical Chicago politician he is far from being a Democrat...but the choice was a Wall Street Republican or a Republican lite and obviously we chose the Republican lite.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I seriously doubt he would retract his offer regardless of the consequences, as it would be hugely detrimental to his post-WH income earnings potential.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
on point
(2,506 posts)Please get a clue and stop trying to play nicey nice
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... no olive branches to the Republicans. I know PO is a smart fellow, and plays chess and all, but what is it about him continuing, after 5 effing years of bending over and taking it from those SOBs? What gives? It's like he's co-dependent or something. All-you-need-to-know-is-what-you-learned-in-kindergarten, for Christ's sake. The People have no more to give! The Corporation has it all. I am so sick of this chipping away at the programs that actually work in this country. We need to go in the other direction for a while, like 30 years or so, to bring this country back to what it was before they started privatizing everything in sight. What we need as a massive Unprivatizing campaign!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Before he ever took office, Obama pledged to cut "entitlements.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/obama-calls-for-2/
Before the ACA was passed in final form, Obama appointed the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as "the Cat Food Commission."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform
There has been event after event since then, aimed at cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, Obama and Congress have been cutting other programs, like fuel subsidies to the poor and SNAP.
So, why is this something that finally got the attention of Democrats in Congress?
Oh, yes, that's right. It's time for them to worry in earnest about 2014 midterms.