There seems to be DU angst regarding ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

President Obama's taking the CCPI out of his 2015 Budget because "it's still on the table."

Well ...

Perhaps if someone explained WHY CCPI won't go anywhere ...





And WHY the gop can't take up the carrot And, WHY President Obama (and team) have instituted a great strategy on this issue, people will be less outraged ... I'm pretty certain no one has explained it before. Wait! What? ...

Look at the polling, Democrats and the rest of the Left hate them (the gop); but more importantly, (and I’ve written this so many times, all I have to do a push control-V) a solid plurality of Independent voters AND republican voters (a solid majority, when taken together) see the gop as the party unwilling to compromise; and therefore, the reason nothing is getting done in Washington.

In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering) and expand the Senate in 2014, Democrats need this cohort of Independent voters and republican voters to either: vote Democratic (which is unlikely); to vote 3rd-party (which will reduce the gerrymandering effect, as it will dilute the gop vote more so than the Democratic vote); or to stay home.

Enter President Obama’s Budget Proposal that included the CCPI … to the Left, it’s Hair On Fire time because NO REAL DEMOCRAT would ever propose “cutting ‘entitlement’ programs”; but look at it from the POV of the target cohort … they see President Obama (and by extension, Democrats) as willing to move on “entitlements” IF the gop is willing to move on taxes (i.e., COMPROMISE). (It is only the Left that is viewing CCPI in isolation). And what is the cohort seeing … the gop continuing to refuse to compromise (that’s what the polling is saying).

Does this strategy risk, disillusioned Democrats sitting home? … Well, yes. And some on the Left are, seemingly, doing everything in their power to make that happen, with their constant President Obama is (and by extension, Democrats are) sell-out devil(s)” mantras, without pointing out that President Obama is not running for office, AND by not pointing out what Democrats (that ARE/will be running) are actually saying … which goes from Pelosi’s, “We’ll consider CCPI; BUT ONLY IF the gop GIVES on taxes” to Markey’s (and the majority of the Democratic Caucsus’) “Hell NO … Leave SS and Medicare alone.”

While I, personally, think that the Pelosi/President Obama position is the wiser strategy, 18 months out from the election, as it continues to reinforce what the targeted cohort already believes … that the gop is unwilling to compromise, Democrats saying “Hell NO!” signals that SS and Medicare will not/cannot be touched.

So Message to the “Hold ‘em accountable” Left and waivering Democrats:

Stop saying/promoting President Obama’s Budget Proposal as merely CCPI (and a few other “anti-Democratic” positions) and help the Democratic Party’s cause by, at a minimum, stating what the Democrats in Congress are actually saying!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251304468

And ...

Here let me spell it out for you one more, again …

Why it hurts republicans …

Republicans demand movement on “entitlements” … President Obama places on the table CCPI … the left freaks out (showing that President Obama is acting against his base, i.e., willing to compromise) … But the offer comes with a demand for more revenue (something that the left ignores during their freak out) … republicans are caught in a pickle; if they accept the CCPI along with the increased revenue, they face a primary challenge because they caved on tax increases AND they are hurt with a significant portion of their mid-term base - the elderly. If they vote against the CCPI, they face a primary because they didn’t cut “entitlements” AND they are hurt with those fed-up republicans and independents that want to see governance, if not compromise, by once again proving the “obstructionist” label, true. The republicans have, once again, refused to take what they asked for.

Now, why it won’t hurt Democrats …

Listen to what sitting Democratic legislators are actually saying about CCPI … Those in safe districts are saying “CCPI? Hell no!” Those in purplish districts and the Democratic leadership are saying, “CCPI? Well, we’ll think about it (against my base’s wishes); but only if the republicans will give in on significant revenue.” Republicans will not do the level of revenue required for CCPI to be put to a vote in the House or the Senate, nor will they do sufficient revenue for President Obama to sign the thing into law.

So fear not … CCPI is going nowhere except to further damage the republican party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3904206

Maybe folk will listen this time ...

[Lasher]

1. No real Democrat would ever propose cutting entitlement programs?

So Obama is not a real Democrat?

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Did you read and/or think ...

about what I written ...or is it just simpler to "argue", "No real Scotsman"?

[Lasher]

4. I read what was written and I understand what you're trying to say.

I've seen the argument before and not just from you. I just don't disagree with this pretzel logic.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. "I just don't disagree with this pretzel logic" ...

I hope you intended that.

[Isoldeblue]

2. Well said

But ODS will keep some from acknowledging it. Whatever....

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. I initially posted this more than a year ago ...

and no one has yet refuted the post. I guess I'm either on ignore with a lot of folks or no one has a cogent argument. The closest anyone has come is to say they didn't appreciate being a pawn in a political game ... as if we have suddenly, with this president become the pawn, or suddenly with this president we should stop.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. solid work there

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. The funny thing ...

(in a sad sort of way) is the republican party (our opposition) sees what Democrats' supposed allies ("liberal/progressives&quot don't.

Maybe folks should look at the gop's response to Greg Walden, NRCC Chair, comments regarding the CCPI and the gop's senior base's response to GWB's attempt to privatize SS.

But I guess I can understand why they won't ... "liberal/progressives" seem to have a real problem acknowledging/admitting that THIS President is smarter, more intelligent, better informed, more strategic than they.

[joshcryer]

9. It's not just new revenue, but a poverty exception, too

[treestar]

10. Just like DADt

they kept saying the repeal was not going to happen, long past any reasonable point for it.

[frwrfpos]

11. why did he offer it up in the first place?

Repukes salivate that he brought it up as a bargaining chip in the first place.

Democrats dont offer up millions of peoples lives as a bargaining chip to terrorists, so can you explain why the hell did Obama offer it up in the first place?

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. Because ...

President Obama's taking the CCPI out of his 2015 Budget because "it's still on the table."

Well ...

Perhaps if someone explained WHY CCPI won't go anywhere ...





And WHY the gop can't take up the carrot And, WHY President Obama (and team) have instituted a great strategy on this issue, people will be less outraged ... I'm pretty certain no one has explained it before. Wait! What? ...




Look at the polling, Democrats and the rest of the Left hate them (the gop); but more importantly, (and I’ve written this so many times, all I have to do a push control-V) a solid plurality of Independent voters AND republican voters (a solid majority, when taken together) see the gop as the party unwilling to compromise; and therefore, the reason nothing is getting done in Washington.

In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering) and expand the Senate in 2014, Democrats need this cohort of Independent voters and republican voters to either: vote Democratic (which is unlikely); to vote 3rd-party (which will reduce the gerrymandering effect, as it will dilute the gop vote more so than the Democratic vote); or to stay home.

Enter President Obama’s Budget Proposal that included the CCPI … to the Left, it’s Hair On Fire time because NO REAL DEMOCRAT would ever propose “cutting ‘entitlement’ programs”; but look at it from the POV of the target cohort … they see President Obama (and by extension, Democrats) as willing to move on “entitlements” IF the gop is willing to move on taxes (i.e., COMPROMISE). (It is only the Left that is viewing CCPI in isolation). And what is the cohort seeing … the gop continuing to refuse to compromise (that’s what the polling is saying).

Does this strategy risk, disillusioned Democrats sitting home? … Well, yes. And some on the Left are, seemingly, doing everything in their power to make that happen, with their constant President Obama is (and by extension, Democrats are) sell-out devil(s)” mantras, without pointing out that President Obama is not running for office, AND by not pointing out what Democrats (that ARE/will be running) are actually saying … which goes from Pelosi’s, “We’ll consider CCPI; BUT ONLY IF the gop GIVES on taxes” to Markey’s (and the majority of the Democratic Caucsus’) “Hell NO … Leave SS and Medicare alone.”

While I, personally, think that the Pelosi/President Obama position is the wiser strategy, 18 months out from the election, as it continues to reinforce what the targeted cohort already believes … that the gop is unwilling to compromise, Democrats saying “Hell NO!” signals that SS and Medicare will not/cannot be touched.

So Message to the “Hold ‘em accountable” Left and waivering Democrats:

Stop saying/promoting President Obama’s Budget Proposal as merely CCPI (and a few other “anti-Democratic” positions) and help the Democratic Party’s cause by, at a minimum, stating what the Democrats in Congress are actually saying!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251304468




And ...




Here let me spell it out for you one more, again …

Why it hurts republicans …

Republicans demand movement on “entitlements” … President Obama places on the table CCPI … the left freaks out (showing that President Obama is acting against his base, i.e., willing to compromise) … But the offer comes with a demand for more revenue (something that the left ignores during their freak out) … republicans are caught in a pickle; if they accept the CCPI along with the increased revenue, they face a primary challenge because they caved on tax increases AND they are hurt with a significant portion of their mid-term base - the elderly. If they vote against the CCPI, they face a primary because they didn’t cut “entitlements” AND they are hurt with those fed-up republicans and independents that want to see governance, if not compromise, by once again proving the “obstructionist” label, true. The republicans have, once again, refused to take what they asked for.

Now, why it won’t hurt Democrats …

Listen to what sitting Democratic legislators are actually saying about CCPI … Those in safe districts are saying “CCPI? Hell no!” Those in purplish districts and the Democratic leadership are saying, “CCPI? Well, we’ll think about it (against my base’s wishes); but only if the republicans will give in on significant revenue.” Republicans will not do the level of revenue required for CCPI to be put to a vote in the House or the Senate, nor will they do sufficient revenue for President Obama to sign the thing into law.

So fear not … CCPI is going nowhere except to further damage the republican party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3904206



Maybe folk will listen this time ...

[frwrfpos]

16. There was no reason to offer it up in the first place

your reasoning makes zero sense

The republican party didnt offer it up. Obama did. Why would Obama offer up millions of lives as a bargaining chip

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. Because GOP said "we need entitlement reform before...

We'll agree to anything about increasing revenues. He called their bluff. They folded. End of story.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Thank you! ...

Maybe if I post this 1,000,000 more times, folks will understand.

People act as if the gop thinks it can win, ever again, if it votes to cut SS. I, again, refer folks to the gop's response to Greg Walden, NRCC Chair, comments regarding the CCPI and the gop's senior base's response to GWB's attempt to privatize SS.

[Lasher]

31. I think you are confused about the difference between understanding and agreement.

I understand your Three-Dimensional Chess argument. I just don't agree with it. Repetition will not make it any more logical than it is right now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. The post an argument against it ...

simply saying "I disagree" is insufficient.

[Lasher]

88. It's there to read in this very thread.

But I can't make you see what you refuse to see. You are in denial.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. Okay, let's take this step by step ...

Do you agree that the gop cannot cut Social Security without losing a significant portion of Seniors that would vote republican?

[Lasher]

96. Yes, but that's not what we're talking about.

In a scenario where Republicans cut Social Security while Democrats fight them tooth and nail, Republicans lose. Real Democratic support for Social Security is a winning strategy.

But that's not what we have here. You are leaving out the part where chained CPI was Obama's proposal. He further legitimized Social Security cuts by adopting their rhetoric. Why would voters turn against just one party if both of them are in on it? With only two viable candidates on the ballot in a General election you can't vote against them both.

Armstead elaborates on this concept downthread in his Post #86.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. No ...

But you are leaving out the part where President Obama's CCPI proposal WAS PRE-CONDITIONED ON "SIGNIFICANT REVENUE INCREASES." Do you find that unimportant or irrelevant?

[Lasher]

110. That doesn't mean Obama didn't propose the cuts. He did.

Why didn't he propose military spending cuts instead of chained CPI? It's just a matter of priorities. And if he really wanted significant revenue increases, all he had to do was let the Bush tax cuts sunset. But he didn't do that, did he?

Why does he say to this very day that Social Security cuts are still on the table?

[frwrfpos]

24. Obama should have told the repukes to fuck off

and offered to cut the military by half if they want savings. The only entitlement reform that needs to take place is lowering the age for SS to 50 and increasing food stamps and disability

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Or, ...

he could have ordered everyone with incomes over $1,000,000 to turn over the passwords to all of their accounts.

How would that work? Really?

[JustAnotherGen]

85. +1

Case Closed.

When Rock and a Hard Place Meet - Republicans are screwed.

[whathehell]

105. Thank you. n/t

[okaawhatever]

23. Another point to remember. Social Security recipients vote overwhelmingly Republican. That puts

the Democrats in a tough situation. We're defending benefits for the Republican voters. Most SS recipients have no idea that when the Repubs talk about "entitlement" cuts they're talking about "ss cuts". Every poll shows SS recipients don't consider SS an entitlement.
Sooo.....the Republicans can't allow "their voters" to get screwed by cutting SS. Obama and the Dems know that. We're trying to educate the Republican voting SS recipients of that.

Interestingly, the Obama's press office said something in the press release today about SS cuts being the number one priority for Republicans. I tried to find the article again, but couldn't. Anyway, none of the right wing or center media sources kept that quote in their story. Why? Because no one is supposed to know the Repubs want SS cuts. lolz.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. Well....two thrids of Seniors voted Republican in 2012. One Third of Social Security

beneficiaries are not seniors, but disabled people, that segment votes very strongly Democratic. So of the 2/3 of beneficiaries that are Seniors, 2/3 of them vote Republican, 1/3 Democratic, add the bulk of the 1/3 non Senior beneficiaries and it becomes a wash. Social Security beneficiaries vote just about half for each Party. Seniors are a different group than Social Security beneficiaries.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. BINGO! ...

But I would argue it doesn't put Democrats in a tough situation ... it puts us in the rightful position of defending benefits for all, include the Republican voters. One would think that would be a message that "liberals/progressives" would be shouting from the mountain tops ... not their current "he really did want to cut SS, but for some mysterious reason has taken it off the table for now" narrative.

But then again ... for "liberals/progressives" it's about purity, not politics ... in a political world.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. It's like when Obama offered to end payroll tax cuts in

exchange for repealing less than one-third of the Bush tax cuts.

It was brilliant.

The Republicans refused, and... wait, they AGREED? Well, whatever.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. No ...

It's like:

President Obama's taking the CCPI out of his 2015 Budget because "it's still on the table."

Well ...

Perhaps if someone explained WHY CCPI won't go anywhere ...





And WHY the gop can't take up the carrot And, WHY President Obama (and team) have instituted a great strategy on this issue, people will be less outraged ... I'm pretty certain no one has explained it before. Wait! What? ...




Look at the polling, Democrats and the rest of the Left hate them (the gop); but more importantly, (and I’ve written this so many times, all I have to do a push control-V) a solid plurality of Independent voters AND republican voters (a solid majority, when taken together) see the gop as the party unwilling to compromise; and therefore, the reason nothing is getting done in Washington.

In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering) and expand the Senate in 2014, Democrats need this cohort of Independent voters and republican voters to either: vote Democratic (which is unlikely); to vote 3rd-party (which will reduce the gerrymandering effect, as it will dilute the gop vote more so than the Democratic vote); or to stay home.

Enter President Obama’s Budget Proposal that included the CCPI … to the Left, it’s Hair On Fire time because NO REAL DEMOCRAT would ever propose “cutting ‘entitlement’ programs”; but look at it from the POV of the target cohort … they see President Obama (and by extension, Democrats) as willing to move on “entitlements” IF the gop is willing to move on taxes (i.e., COMPROMISE). (It is only the Left that is viewing CCPI in isolation). And what is the cohort seeing … the gop continuing to refuse to compromise (that’s what the polling is saying).

Does this strategy risk, disillusioned Democrats sitting home? … Well, yes. And some on the Left are, seemingly, doing everything in their power to make that happen, with their constant President Obama is (and by extension, Democrats are) sell-out devil(s)” mantras, without pointing out that President Obama is not running for office, AND by not pointing out what Democrats (that ARE/will be running) are actually saying … which goes from Pelosi’s, “We’ll consider CCPI; BUT ONLY IF the gop GIVES on taxes” to Markey’s (and the majority of the Democratic Caucsus’) “Hell NO … Leave SS and Medicare alone.”

While I, personally, think that the Pelosi/President Obama position is the wiser strategy, 18 months out from the election, as it continues to reinforce what the targeted cohort already believes … that the gop is unwilling to compromise, Democrats saying “Hell NO!” signals that SS and Medicare will not/cannot be touched.

So Message to the “Hold ‘em accountable” Left and waivering Democrats:

Stop saying/promoting President Obama’s Budget Proposal as merely CCPI (and a few other “anti-Democratic” positions) and help the Democratic Party’s cause by, at a minimum, stating what the Democrats in Congress are actually saying!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251304468




And ...




Here let me spell it out for you one more, again …

Why it hurts republicans …

Republicans demand movement on “entitlements” … President Obama places on the table CCPI … the left freaks out (showing that President Obama is acting against his base, i.e., willing to compromise) … But the offer comes with a demand for more revenue (something that the left ignores during their freak out) … republicans are caught in a pickle; if they accept the CCPI along with the increased revenue, they face a primary challenge because they caved on tax increases AND they are hurt with a significant portion of their mid-term base - the elderly. If they vote against the CCPI, they face a primary because they didn’t cut “entitlements” AND they are hurt with those fed-up republicans and independents that want to see governance, if not compromise, by once again proving the “obstructionist” label, true. The republicans have, once again, refused to take what they asked for.

Now, why it won’t hurt Democrats …

Listen to what sitting Democratic legislators are actually saying about CCPI … Those in safe districts are saying “CCPI? Hell no!” Those in purplish districts and the Democratic leadership are saying, “CCPI? Well, we’ll think about it (against my base’s wishes); but only if the republicans will give in on significant revenue.” Republicans will not do the level of revenue required for CCPI to be put to a vote in the House or the Senate, nor will they do sufficient revenue for President Obama to sign the thing into law.

So fear not … CCPI is going nowhere except to further damage the republican party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3904206

[neverforget]

15. It's brilliant! A Democrat offers up a "cut" on Social Security

and then we win elections.....or something.

[Autumn]

19. GOTV 2014 and then we win elections.....or something

unless we lose then it's our fault.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. And it would be a shame ...

if we lose because "liberals/progressives" have spent so much effort repeating a false narrative, i.e., "President Obama (Democrats) is (are) trying to cut Social Security!!!!"

[Glitterati]

91. Oh, you mean telling the truth?

Yeah, I guess we should stop doing that.

To win elections. Because nothing else matters. Even principles.

Clap louder, right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. There is no truth in that ...

neither President Obama, nor Democrats are trying to cut Social Security. The CCPI proposal is/was a deal that the gop could not accept because it was tied to "significant revenue increases."

And even if they did, it would not have gotten out of the Senate, and frankly, I don't think it would have gotten out of the House ... republicans count on their seniors, too.

[Glitterati]

97. Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think

the truth is that President Obama put cuts to social security on the table.

Period.

That's fact.

That's wrong.

That affects me one on one.

That is unacceptable.

What you think has no bearing on the facts.

[Lasher]

100. And he said they are still on the table, even after he took them out of his budget.

That comes short of my minimum expectations in a Democratic President.

[Glitterati]

101. Of course he did

Nothing quite like keeping the poor, the disabled, widows and children on the edge of their seats worrying when the NEXT shoe drops, is there?

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. So you are typing to yourself? ...

The TRUTH is that President Obama put cuts to social security, ALONG WITH SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN REVENUE, on the table. Why do you keep leaving that FACT out? (Possibly, because you know that FACT made the proposal a non-starter?)

[Glitterati]

115. Quite frankly, I don't care how he and you justified it

he put MY livelihood on the line as a trade.

He was, and STILL IS, willing to cut my throat as an SS widow for his rich ass buddies.

And, you, nor anyone else can make that right OR excuse it away.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Okay ...

I'll try one more time ...

If you offer to give me something in exchange for something that you know I cannot give you, have you risked the thing that you offered?

As an extreme example, if you offered me $1,000,000,000 in exchange for me allowing you to kill me, is your $1,000,000,000 really at risk? ... no matter how much I wanted the money?

It's the same here, no matter how much the gop wants to cut social Security, they can't give enough on taxes to make the deal happen without being primaried from the right and abandoned by their seniors and the wealthy.

[JustAnotherGen]

126. Lather, rinse, repeat

It's the same here, no matter how much the gop wants to cut social Security, they can't give enough on taxes to make the deal happen without being primaried from the right and abandoned by their seniors and the wealthy.

The Republican party as it exists today will never ever ever agree to raising taxes on the affluent, rich, and wealthy. So anything we don't want to happen - as long as we say - sure - cut that - but take away all of those little loop holes . . . and it's an automatic non starter.

[Autumn]

93. Then President Obama should stop calling for the cuts to SS in his budget negotiations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4538550

and then we "liberals/progressives" won't have to spend so much effort fighting it.

I grow weary of contacting the president I voted for and the democratic reps I have voted for asking them to do the right thing and not vote for any bargain that contains their little tweaks that harms the vulnerable.

Your little "narrative" that it would be our fault if we lose just won't work on me.

If the republicans win it's because democrats lost. I'm not in charge of their campaigns otherwise I would tell them that "Vote for me. I don't suck as bad as s a republican" just doesn't fucking work.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Okay ...

President Obama did ... he dropped it from his budget proposal.

And what do "liberals/progressive" on DU do ... argue, "Yeah, but it's just temporary!"

[Autumn]

108. I won't argue with what the White House says, the offer remains on the table in event of new talks

"One official said the offer would remain on the table in the event of new budget talks but that it would not be part of the president's formal spending blueprint for fiscal 2015."
Sounds temporary to me.

"And what do "liberals/progressive" on DU do ... argue, "Yeah, but it's just temporary!"

I guess we "liberals/progressives" must be smart enough to understand what we read huh?

Spin that all you want but to tell you the truth you are just not that good at it.


There it is in black and white print. Bang your head all you want, it's there.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/obama-budget_n_4824387.html

I edited this just to add that I find "And what do "liberals/progressive" on DU do ... argue, "Yeah, but it's just temporary!" to be offensive.

Congratulations, you are the first DUer I have ever encountered that makes the term "liberals/progressive" sound like a nasty put down.

[Lifelong Protester]

119. I agree.

Continuing to 'use' liberals as a firewall?

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. No ...

Do you understand that in order to take the House in 2014 Democrats must get the plurality of Independents and republican voters to vote Democratic, vote 3rd party or stay at home and the only where to do that is to get that cohort to continue believe that the republican party is the party of "No."

The gop asked, no demanded, that "entitlements" be put on the table ... this has been done and they still are saying "No." What does that leave "Independent" voters and the plurality of republican voters that poll as having the gop as the party of obstruction to conclude?

And how will that translate into political action in 2014?

[neverforget]

22. Don't you think that standing up for Democratic programs like Social Security is

something Democrats should do and be proud of? How does offering something the Republicans want help us? Oooh! They're obstructionist! That's all the Republicans have to offer! There are host of other issues that Democrats could run on without offering a ridiculous cut to SS and claim that the Republicans are obstructing it.

How is it going to play with "independents" that a Democrat offered up cuts to a core Democratic program? It's naive to think that the Republicans won't turn that around and use against Democrats. Edited to add: "We (Obama) wanted to cut Social Security but the Republicans wouldn't accept it." That sounds like a winning campaign slogan!

[Lasher]

34. This is where Obama has done lasting damage to the Democratic Party brand.

When someone asks you for reasons to vote Democratic, one of them is because Democrats stand up for domestic social programs like Social Security, right? Now what will we tell them when they say Obama wanted to cut Social Security and Republicans wouldn't go along with it?

[ProSense]

41. This is simply

"This is where Obama has done lasting damage to the Democratic Party brand.

When someone asks you for reasons to vote Democratic, one of them is because Democrats stand up for domestic social programs like Social Security, right? Now what will we tell them when they say Obama wanted to cut Social Security and Republicans wouldn't go along with it?"

...inaccurate. Republicans have been trying to destroy Social Security for decades. This is not new. How on earth does attempting to negotiate with Republicans, who are unwilling to budge, resulting in the proposal being pulled do "lasting damage to the Democratic Party brand"?

I mean, what Obama did isn't new, and he certainly hasn't cut Social Security, unlike past Presidents.

Carter was the last Democratic President to lower Social Security benefits.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024536721

[Lasher]

48. OK Republicans hate Social Security. How does that make Obama's proposed cuts any less real?

Did Obama propose Social Security cuts or not? Most voters won't care about your rationalization, so a yes or no answer is called for here. That's how he's done lasting damage to the Democratic Party brand. It is now more difficult to claim the moral high ground where our domestic social programs are concerned.

ETA: The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act increased the portion of Social Security annuities that are subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

[ProSense]

51. Yes, it

"OK Republicans hate Social Security. How does that make Obama's proposed cuts any less real?

Did Obama propose Social Security cuts or not? Most voters won't care about your rationalization, so a yes or no answer is called for here. That's how he's done lasting damage to the Democratic Party brand. It is now more difficult to claim the moral high ground where our domestic social programs are concerned."

...says so right here:

"The compromise embedded in last year’s Budget included policies like chained CPI -- the number one policy change that Republicans had asked for in previous fiscal negotiations," said a White House official. "However, over the course of last year, Republicans consistently showed a lack of willingness to negotiate on a deficit reduction deal, refusing to identify even one unfair tax loophole they would be willing to close, despite the President’s willingness to put tough things on the table."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-to-drop-social-security-cuts-budget

You're right that "voters won't care" what I say, but by the time the media are done with this story, millions of people will learn that Obama moved to protect Social Security.

The media were all too eager to push the "liberal" backlash to cuts. Watch as they now push the Republican line on "reform."

Too late, the number of people opposed to cuts have grown during this debate.

Obama will be seen as the person who dropped the cuts.

[Lasher]

52. You have no way of knowing that the media will later decide Obama is Social Security's savior.

Obama is already seen as the person who dropped the cuts - the cuts that he himself proposed. How does that turn into "He didn't propose Social Security cuts"?

Here, let me propose an exercise: Google "Obama proposed Social Security cuts" and check out the headlines that come up on the first couple of pages. That is the reality you are trying to change.

So did Obama propose Social Security cuts or not, yes or no?

[ProSense]

53. I think

Here, let me propose an exercise: Google "Obama proposed Social Security cuts" and check out the headlines that come up on the first couple of pages. That is the reality you are trying to change.

...you will be shocked if you Google "Obama drops Social Security cuts"

Good stuff.

[Lasher]

55. I've seen it already. That comes up in the search I suggested for you.

Here's one result:

Obama Will Drop Social Security Cuts In His Budget

President Barack Obama will drop Social Security cuts he supported last year in his upcoming budget proposal, White House sources told TPM on Thursday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-to-drop-social-security-cuts-budget

I said in my last reply that the media would acknowledge this. Why would I be shocked? He dropped the cuts that he supported last year in his budget. Your wishful thinking does not erase that from history, despite your reluctance to answer a simple yes or no question.

[ProSense]

57. What

"I said in my last reply that the media would acknowledge this. Why would I be shocked? He dropped the cuts that he supported last year in his budget. Your wishful thinking does not erase that from history, despite your reluctance to answer a simple yes or no question."

..."reluctance"?

"The compromise embedded in last year’s Budget included policies like chained CPI -- the number one policy change that Republicans had asked for in previous fiscal negotiations," said a White House official. "However, over the course of last year, Republicans consistently showed a lack of willingness to negotiate on a deficit reduction deal, refusing to identify even one unfair tax loophole they would be willing to close, despite the President’s willingness to put tough things on the table."

That's from the piece you linked to.

I said it before, accepting a Republican offer in an attempt to negotiate with Republicans, who are unwilling to budge, resulted in the proposal being pulled.

That's how it is, and now the headlines will scream that Obama took Social Security cuts out of the budget.

[Lasher]

59. Ha ha, this is starting to get kinda funny.

Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word if you want it. Maybe play Battle Hymn of the Republic in the background while you recite that last line again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. And hopefully ...

the headlines will scream: now the headlines will scream that Obama took Social Security cuts out of the budget BECAUSE republicans refused to increase taxes on the wealthy .

[ProSense]

83. I called it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024539693

[neverforget]

44. This cut or "strategy", chess if you like, is dumb beyond words.

Vote for Democrats because the Republicans wouldn't accept our cut to Social Security.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Okay ...

either you did not read the post or you are just constitutionally unable to accept that President Obama (and his team) can, and do, play this game called politics, at a higher level than you can conceive.

[neverforget]

125. trust us! we'd never sell you out because we're politicians.

I trust no politician unconditionally. Never have, never will. There are politicians I like, of which President Obama is one, but stupid proposals like this will get my condemnation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Nor do I ...

My trust of THIS President is based on his track record for making the right call and calling the right play.

[neverforget]

129. he makes more right than wrong decisions but this

chained CPI is one the dumber ones.

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. I disagree ...

I support any decision that paints the gop in a negative light, especially when there is no downside to the decision (except the risk of upsetting those unable/unwilling to see the forest for the trees ... until they are out of the woods).

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. Yes ...

I understand that standing up for Democratic programs like Social Security is something Democrats should do and be proud of.

Polling suggests that politicians would pay a severe price for cutting Social Security.

Polling suggests that a majority of the electorate (both sides) want Congress to work together to get stuff done and they see the inability to compromise as the key impediment to this.

Polling suggests that a majority of the electorate (both sides) assign the modern gop as the party that refuses to compromise.

This is the case President Obama (and his team) has spent the last 3 years developing ... and it is working.

If "liberal/progressives" spend half as much energy and key-strokes pointing out what Democrats have always known - That the modern gop is not serious about governing, as demonstrated once again, by their refusal to accept what they said they wanted in order to protect the wealthy from having to pay more in taxes. (which is a accurate and very progressive argument that cuts in favor of Democrats); rather than, the incomplete, self-destructive "a Democrat offered up cuts to a core Democratic program" argument, we would have no problem flipping the House and expanding in the Senate.

[TheKentuckian]

46. No one wants their Social Security cut, not even TeaPubliKlans.

This means their voters and leaners will absolutely not punish their pols for not compromising in exchange for what even they don't actually want.

You have greatly over weighted a data point, that people want politicians to negotiate and let ideology take a back seat to governing. It is true but nobody wants to cut their Social Security over it (or again, at all). So even if the strategy is sound, the pry bar is brittle because it is fairly universally popular.

There is no there here except for a lame set up to blame the liberals for when the too clever by half as a cover for corporate and right wing policies and initiatives fail to bring the independents and TeaPubliKlans they are supposed to attract but never seem to do though the coffers seem to be ever bigger.

[ProSense]

18. No,

"It's like when Obama offered to end payroll tax cuts in exchange for repealing less than one-third of the Bush tax cuts."

...it was like when Obama ended the payroll tax cuts and the tax cuts for the top one percent and extended unemployment benefits for a year. That move was the reason Republicans has no bargaining chip during the Government shut down. That move helped to end the sequestration.

See, from the Making Work Pay Credit to now, the President has always focused on how to protect Americans from Republicans' failed policies and obstruction.

[okaawhatever]

26. Why are you changing the subject? nt

[ProSense]

27. "It's like when Obama offered to end payroll tax cuts in"

I was responding to that comment.

Now, how was I "changing the subject"?

[joshcryer]

30. You have to stop posting proof so quick, ProSense.

They aren't posting proof, they're just spouting off, they won't engage if you freaking beat them to the punch in your first reply, and no one will see them get owned for being ignorant.

Here's how it works: pose a counter argument, they come back and respond with some snide remark not believing it, then you post the proof. Then they look like the ignorant people they are.

[ProSense]

33. Yeah. Still, the funny thing

is that by the time the media are done with this story, millions of people will learn that Obama move to protect Social Security.

Before, they were all too eager to push the "liberal" backlash to cuts. Watch as they now push the Republican line on "reform."

Too late, the number of people opposed to cuts have grown during this debate.

[joshcryer]

35. It is a good thing that Obama took it out of the budget.

It is effectively off the table, because what was on the table wasn't able to pass under this Congress.

[Lasher]

56. Obama said SS cuts are still on the table, even though they are not in his budget now.

Why doesn't he say military spending is on the table? Or at least everything is on the table? Why even mention the table right now?

[joshcryer]

62. Sure, rhetoric.

How is it going to be introduced?

"The Cut Social Security Act of 2014"?

[grahamhgreen]

40. Just remember that the payroll tax cut also damaged the long term solvency of SS.

[ProSense]

45. No it didn't. It was fully paid for. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

121. Kinda. But in not gonna fight about this cuz I approve of the direction

he appears to be moving

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143241709/how-payroll-tax-cut-affects-social-securitys-future

[ProSense]

123. That's incorrect. Here are the numbers

(Note that in 2009, expenditures exceeded revenue from payroll tax contributions, which I suspect had to do with massive unemployment.)

2009
Total receipts 807,490
Net payroll tax contributions 667,257
Income from taxation of benefits 21,884
General fund reimbursementsa
Net interest b 118,349
Total expenditures 685,801


2010
Total receipts 781,128
Net payroll tax contributions 637,283
Income from taxation of benefits 23,942
General fund reimbursementsa 2,405
Net interest b 117,498
Total expenditures 712,526


2011
Total receipts 805,057
Net payroll tax contributions 564,231
Income from taxation of benefits 23,792
General fund reimbursementsa 102,680
Net interest b 114,355
Total expenditures 736,083


2012
Total receipts 840,190
Net payroll tax contributions 589,508
Income from taxation of benefits 27,258
General fund reimbursementsa 114,280
Net interest b 109,143
Total expenditures 785,781

http://ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

So while payroll contribution dropped, the General Fund reimbursed the Trust Fund in 2011 and 2012. Still, in no year did total expenditures exceed total receipts.

[joshcryer]

29. Um, no, it was in exchange for unemployment benefits.

[okaawhatever]

25. Let's not forget the elephant in the room here. SS recipients are now voting majority

Republican. They listen to Fox news and won't like or dislike Obama anymore that they already do if he offers up chained CPI. In fact, if the Republicans call his bluff and say okay to a cut, they will likely approve of Obama and the Dems more for defending it.

That's one of the problems with Social Security, while it's a Democrat backed and supported program, it's a program that benefits more Republicans voters than Democratic ones.

[joshcryer]

32. "SS recipients are now voting majority Republican."

Do you have a link for that? All I am seeing is that the majority voted for Obama...

This is not to disagree with your statement, because in 2010 the Teabaggers got into power by saying the Democrats were cutting Medicare. I just find it hard to believe the majority would be voting Republican, because the Republican platform is literally to privatize Social Security (as well as get rid of Disability and Supplemental Social Security).

[Lasher]

36. I'd like to see that link too.

This is news to me.

[okaawhatever]

38. those are all entitlement programs and not just social security. I looked for the article I read but

couldn't find it. I also couldn't find an article that gave specifics about SS voters and party, but 97% of people over age 65 receive SS. If you compare the numbers for party affiliation for those over age 65 you will reach the same conclusion.

[joshcryer]

43. Democrats do better in the 70s-80s though.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118285/democrats-best-among-generation-baby-boomers.aspx

I can't find the data to support your conclusion.

[okaawhatever]

47. Here is the USA today results from the 2012 election. It shows Mitt won just over 55%

of the over 65 vote. Obama took 43. It's not exact because it's based on exit polls.

The story I read was a pretty thorough report on the issue of Democrats fighting off SS cuts when Republicans get the majority of the votes. I'm thinking it may have been done by Krugman, but maybe it was the New York Times. Anyway, the Repubs are the ones who want cuts so bad, let them try to sell it to their voters.

[joshcryer]

54. Please find it.

My data polls each age group as opposed to basic exit polls.

[Lasher]

58. And Obama vs. Mitt does not equal Democratic vs. Republican

They were not the only two on the ballots.

[joshcryer]

63. Everyone else was a rounding error in 2012 though.

Gary Johnson didn't even get 1%.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. Point being there are other offices, and that Obama in the debates said he and Mitt agreed

about Social Security, so to wonder why he was not seen as a protector of Social Security is a waste of time, he said to voters when asked to contrast his views to Romney's ""I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is -- the basic structure is sound."

So he said he agreed with the Republicans, but voters should have known better?

[joshcryer]

79. Yes. Gore warned people with the lockbox.

At least Hillary refused to put shit on the table. But I remember, she got crap for that because she was "waffling."

[Bluenorthwest]

73. But 'Seniors' and 'Social Security Beneficiaries' are not the same thing. 1/3 of beneficiaries are

under retirement age and receiving disability benefits. So 43% of the Seniors vote Democratic, almost all of the disabled beneficiaries do so, they are largely Democratic voters for many reasons.
So your declarations about 'Beneficiaries' are based on false assumptions about that group, that they are all Seniors, when one third are not seniors.

[Glitterati]

77. Don't leave out widows, either

Democratic widows, BTW.

Who are trying to live on Social Security - with children of the deceased.

But, honestly, I find it absolutely disgusting that a Democratic member of this society would think it's OK to cut the miniscule SS benefits of ANYONE because they VOTE THE WRONG WAY.

Good GAWD I can't believe these comments. Repeated many times in this thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Only 2/3 of Social Security beneficiaries are over 65. One thrid is under 65.

So any declaration about what Seniors do only address 2/3 of Social Security beneficiaries. Age is not a factor for the entire group 'beneficiaries of Social Security' as you are claiming.

[Glitterati]

78. And MANY are children with a deceased parent

minors.

Thank you for trying to bring some honesty to this comment.

I am just stunned by this. Still trying to get my jaw off the floor.

Cut social security because those people vote the wrong way! Good GAWD!

Next people on this board will be suggesting we put in a political test for Food Stamps, and Welfare, and Unemployment.

Vote Democrat or die.

What the hell have we become?

[TheKentuckian]

50. There is no one to peel, the premise is false no matter how often or stridently repeated.

These folks can't admit that though because they can't justify the crap policies they want to get through with the support of the victims in true "Chickens for Colonel Sanders" like fashion.

[Glitterati]

82. You're wrong, but even if you're not.....

what you are suggesting is a political test for benefits that have been earned.

Let me give you an example. My daughter was 15 when her father died. She gets his social security benefits as a minor of a deceased parent.

So, you're suggesting it's OK to cut her benefits because too many Republicans also get social security?

What's next? A political test for food stamps? for unemployment? for TANF?

You do realize what you are suggesting is the newest version of Jim Crow laws right?

It's OK if a Democrat does it because we might catch out some Republicans while people starve?

Good GAWD, what have we become?

[Cha]

28. Mahalo for all the analyses,

1SBM. President Obama doesn't mind taking the heat so he can reach his end game.

[IrishAyes]

37. I've often wondered if President Obama's CPI proposals might be on the sucker bait side.

And they well could be. That's one of the things that I admire most about President Obama; his strategic brilliance. Biden spoke the truth when he warned, "Don't ever play poker with that man!"

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. It was ...

The proposal was, in fact, "I'll give you cuts to SS; but only if you give me significant revenue increases" ... IOWs, "I'll give you what you (say) you want; but only if you give me what (we both know) you can't give me." (Sucker Bait)

And sadly ... the sucker bait, counts/counted on "liberals/progressives" to do what they do

[grahamhgreen]

39. Let's remember Obama DID CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, as I recall....

By not increasing the COLA, he effectively cut SS payments... But I won't quibble - I'll give him credit for not starving Grannies this year!



http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/cola/colaseries.html

[Lasher]

60. No, Obama had nothing to do with that.

The annual COLA is based on the CPI as your graphic shows. This was established before Obama assumed the Presidency.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. You are correct, but what he should have been advocating was a rise in the COLA formula,

not a cut.

[Lasher]

87. That's right.

But by now we know he's not going to do any such thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. Thank you for stopping the trial balloon ...

for the next out-rage.

[MrScorpio]

42. I'm just sorry that I missed your original post

But this is excellent work.

You get a Damn Skippy! from me.

[jaysunb]

49. Haters will continue to hate...cause, that's what

they do.

I saw this coming and realized that team Obama was painting the Republicans into a corner of which there is no escape. The UI trap has already been sprung. This strategy will continue.
Just today, the President laid the marker for Democrats: Concentrate on winning State and local elections...all else will fall in line at the national level. Turn out is the key.

Let's Go ! GOTV !

We will win the 2014 elections.

[bowens43]

81. wow, you really are buying into that crap? Seriously?

yes the old multiple dimension chess bullshit...got it LOL

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. Everything is B.S. ...

until it's not.

But it's not "multiple dimension chess" ... it's just plan old good strategic planning.

[Logical]

135. LOL, I get it, 8 dimensional chess shit again! n-t

[Hekate]

61. Thank you, my friend. GOTV 2014. KnR.

[NCTraveler]

67. While I do feel the negatives outweight the positives....

with respect to the Administrations handling of this area of the budget, I will still k&R for the thought behind your op. I don't think it is something we can fully agree upon, so I don't really want to hash it out here, but I do see some good points you have made. I just think addressing it as a problem needing to be solved by way of cuts overcomes all else. K&R

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. Thank you ...

But I will just say

I just think addressing it as a problem needing to be solved by way of cuts overcomes all else.

Offering your opponent something in exchange for something you know they can't give is not an offer, it's a tactic. There is/was no chance of any cuts.

[madokie]

68. Considering that anything that Obama is for

the pukes are against the best thing for not having to really worry about CCPI is that he had included it in a budget at one point. I think the man is brilliant in his strategy of playing the fools for the iggots they are.

[JoePhilly]

70. The Combustible Hair Club decided a long time ago ...

... that the president hates the poor and the middle class. It might have been in a meeting not unlike the one held by Newt Gingrich and the GOP leaders on inauguration eve 2009.

They've spent the last 3+ years or so absolutely certain that Obama would cut Social Security. They have been so sure about this, that their level of anger over it started at a level commensurate with his having actually cutting social security, and then grown.

In addition to being wrong about this, which they are, they don;t seem to be able to grasp that if the President actually wanted to cut Social Security, he had the absolute perfect opportunity back in 2009.

The GOP's plan to kill social security has always been to bankrupt the country, increase debt and deficits, and then, when the economy is devastated, tell the American people ... "Hey, we need that money or we're all gonna die tomorrow."

And that's where we were in Jan/Feb/March of 2009. The country was freaked out. It was the absolute perfect time. In fact, if Bush had another year in office, that's what he'd have said to the American people. And the American people would have handed over their Social Security.

But this didn't happen. Obama, as part of the stimulus could have asked the American people to give up a nice big chuck of their Social Security, and they would have done it. But he didn't.

Folks here on DU were sure he was going to. Much like they were sure that in the summer of 2009, there would be a double-dip recession (they were wrong about that each of his first 4 summers in office, btw).

Since 2009, DU has had endless threads about how Obama was about to "cave" and and take social security from everyone. It was always imminent. Every budget. Every debt ceiling hostage crisis. Every piece of legislation with any important those threads would pop up.

Burning hair and outrage as far as the eye could see.

So what's next? ... I expect we'll see plenty of "Obama wanted to kill Social Security, but we stopped him" threads for a little while. But those won't have anywhere near the level of energy of the outrage threads.

Then ... its off to a new outrage!!

[great white snark]

102. He didn't kill it but but but he made it fashionable to do so! (wiping froth) Eeeevil!

It's the ignorant "on the table" argument. Public slaying of the elderly in some kind of Logan's Run to the extreme is fucking "on the table"

[JoePhilly]

104. yup ... as if GW Bush wasn't pushing privitization long before

Obama ever took office.

The GOP would have never thought about going after Social Security, if not for Obama.

Apparently.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. Yep ...

Then ... its off to a new outrage!!

Which, if history can serve as a guide, will be, "He's gonna cut SS, this time ... I'm sure of it ... This time he really will!"

[bowens43]

80. bullshit. Obama has legitmized the destruction of safty nets. Anything goes now.

[Glitterati]

84. Exactly

just because a Democratic President suggested it, we're all just supposed to clap and cheer.

While. people. starve.

Because they vote wrong!

A political test for EARNED benefits!!!!! Good GAWD, what have we become?

[ProSense]

92. Oh

"Obama has legitmized the destruction of safty nets. "

...bullshit. The health care law strengthened Medicare.

<...>

MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).

<...>

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

In addition to expanding Medicaid, the ACA increased the Medicaid drug rebate percentage.
http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

Medicaid Drug Rebate Program

<...>

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program is a partnership between CMS, State Medicaid Agencies, and participating drug manufacturers that helps to offset the Federal and State costs of most outpatient prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid patients. Approximately 600 drug manufacturers currently participate in this program. All fifty States and the District of Columbia cover prescription drugs under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which is authorized by Section 1927 of the Social Security Act.

The program requires a drug manufacturer to enter into, and have in effect, a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in exchange for State Medicaid coverage of most of the manufacturer’s drugs. When a manufacturers markets a new drug and electronically lists it with the FDA, they must also submit the drug to the Drug Data Reporting (DDR) system. This ensures that states are aware of the newly marketed drug. In addition, Section II(g) of the Rebate Agreement explains that labelers are responsible for notifying states of a new drug’s coverage. Labelers are required to report all covered outpatient drugs under their labeler code to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. They may not be selective in reporting their NDC's to the program. Manufacturers are then responsible for paying a rebate on those drugs each time that they are dispensed to Medicaid patients. These rebates are paid by drug manufacturers on a quarterly basis and are shared between the States and the Federal government to offset the overall cost of prescription drugs under the Medicaid Program.

http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Medicaid-Drug-Rebate-Program.html

Medicaid has one of the best drug policies, much better than Medicare.

Issue Brief - Medicare Drug Negotiation and Rebates

<...>

Best Price. A third argument is that it makes sense for Medicare to receive the best price available for prescription drugs, just like Medicaid and the VA. In Medicaid, the drug manufacturer provides the federal government discounts for drugs, which are shared with the states. The discount is either the minimum drug amount or an amount based on the best price paid by private drug purchasers, whichever is less. Current law requires drug companies to charge Medicaid 23 percent less than the average price they receive for the sale of a drug to retail pharmacies. Drug companies also must provide another discount if a drug’s price rises faster than the rate of inflation (Thomas and Pear, 2013)...Medicaid rebates, if applied to Part D, would save the federal government money. According to a 2011 study conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicaid rebates were three times greater than the discounts negotiated by Part D for 100 brand name drugs. In 68 of these drugs, Medicaid rebates were twice as high as rebates granted by the drug companies for Medicare drugs (OIG HHS, 2011; Hulsey, 2013). Similarly, a 2008 study of drug pricing information by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Part D paid, on average, 30 percent more for drugs than Medicaid (Hulsey, 2013).

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/Medicare/Documents/ArticleID/1138/Issue-Brief-Medicare-Drug-Negotiation-and-Rebates

The Stimulus worked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024539986

[great white snark]

99. Oh bullshit back at you.

"anything goes now"

Yes, including bullshit passed as facts.

[JoePhilly]

106. GW Bush would have never tried to privitize Social Security

without Obama.

Yup ... you're absolutely correct.

Thanks Obama!

[Armstead]

86. I respectfully disagree -- This is how the agenda keeps getting shifted further to the right

I think taking CCPI off the table for now is a good step....But rather than being part of a brilliant strategy, it is simply correcting one aspect of an ineffective approach to politics and governing.

Your premise seems to be that this is all about creating perceptions among "swing" voters of the Democrats as the reasonable party compared to those hardheaded Republicans.

IMO the fallacy of your premise is that you are mixing up perceptions of behavior with philosophy.

Sure, the GOP has not been doing themselves any favors with their sociopathic insistence on slash and burn and their stubborn resistance to negotiation. They look like a combination of jerks and spoiled crybabies.

However, ultimately they are succeeding in their goals by pushing the agenda ever farther to the right, because the centrist Democrats are echoing their message, instead of presenting an actual alternative to their Paul Ryan/Grover Norquist/Ayn Rnd vision of the world.

The basic fact of the matter is that ultimately, the problem our nation faces right now is not the result of wild government spending on "entitlements" and other public needs. It is the result of the reckless and destructive financial behavior of the private sector over the last 30 years coming home to roost.

The economy did not crash because people were getting too many SS benefits or the government was too generous with food stamps.

Let's stop advancing the GOP lies that claim such things. That is what we do when we say "Yes government spending is the problem. The first priority is to join with te GOP to reduce government and bring spending down."

Rather than looking like the responsible party, the Democrats have become perceived as the weak sibling because of that.

By agreeing with the GOP on the wrong thing, all we are doing is making the GOP's point in the mind of the public.

Although the GOP is harming their own image with antics like the shutdown, etc. the Democrats do not look like a good alternative in the eyes of the low-information apolitical voter. They simply lump in the Democrats as part of the problem.

And, worse, yet, the vacillating behavior of the Democratic leadership advances the goals of the GOP.

Up until the last few years, even the GOP had better sense than to screw around with even the perception of tampering with Social Security benefits.

Sure, they tried to do that in other ways such as pushing "private investment alternatives" and by broad scare tactics about how "Social Security is going broke!" But they knew that they had to be evasive about it, and always promised to leave benefits alone and pretending to want to "save" SS.

But, since 2008 especially, the Democrats participated in advancing the overall GOP agenda by echoing the Republican claims that government was in deep financial shit, and the only way to stave off the disaster was "austerity, cut,austerity,cut."....But at the same time the Democrats have also given lip srvice to the position that taxes also needed to be raised.

So on one hand here has been the GOP saying -- "Cut and No Taxes" while Democrats, under the "centrist" Obama faction saying "Cut and More Taxes."

By doing so we are giving voters the choice of the worst of both worlds. The Democrats become the Castor Oil Party. And, worse, the ineffectual party.

And worse, by offering up an "adjustment" in the form of CCPI, Obama opened that door that even the GOP was afraid to open before.

I believe instead, it would have been (could be) totally possible for the Democrats to be a Party of Strong Principles (defending an advancing SS and other public services) while also being the party of Responsible Adults -- by both standing up for our own principles but being willing to actually compromise -- but NOT by starting out accepting the wrong premises and terms of the GOP.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

118. Never have so many words been used to be so wrong about this

Issue. I respect the effort you put in, but you've only started from the premise that offering chained CPI is weakness and bad pilitics then framed your perception to fit that premise.

Actual polling shows voters trust Dems on economic issues far more than Republicans.

By the way, we are still running deficits that are astronomical even with increased revenue from tax increases on the wealthy and an improved economy. It would actually be bad politics NOT to demonstrate a willingness for some belt tightening where appropriate.

[Armstead]

128. No I didn't frame my peception to fit the premise....I'd rather that my premise be wrong

You are welcome to disagree with my premise. However, it is not based on doing contortions to purposely feel discontented.


It's not particularly enjoyable feeling like the political party one supports -- and that supposedly supports one's positions -- is perpetually poking you in the eye.

It is much more pleasant to assume that the leadership, starting at the top, is doing everything right, and that one can agree with everything they do.

Also, I realize the budget needs to be controlled. But that's Mom eating apple pie. The question is priorities.

[Arcanetrance]

107. The problem I see with what you're saying is it relies on Republican voters either

A) Getting disillusioned and not voting one thing I've noticed about Republicans is they like to vote even if it screws us all they don't miss elections even local ones.

B) Again your relying on Republican politicians to think rationally about how much it'll screw them over. The problem is the trend in Republican circles right now is how right wing can you get and their base is eating it up. Hence why more and more of the establishment Republicans are giving in to the crazies.

My point is eventually if it's offered enough times eventually the Republicans will take us up on the offer than what do we do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. Well ...

A) Getting disillusioned and not voting one thing I've noticed about Republicans is they like to vote even if it screws us all they don't miss elections even local ones.

beck, hannity and levine have joined together and are actively encouraging their audiences to sit out the 2014 general election, if teaparty candidates don't win in gop primaries. A quote the beck show: "If Bevin loses to McConnell, I'm not leaving me house to vote ... What's the use?" And when the guest, ann coulter, argued that conservatives needed to get out and hold their noses to vote for McConnell because he would be better than Grimes, beck said, "Nope ... not gonna do it! (principles over party!)." And the callers I heard all sided with beck.

B) Again your relying on Republican politicians to think rationally about how much it'll screw them over. The problem is the trend in Republican circles right now is how right wing can you get and their base is eating it up. Hence why more and more of the establishment Republicans are giving in to the crazies.

Not really ... I'm relying on the polling that has a majority of independent and a solid plurality of republicans indicating that the modern gop is too extreme and tired of establishment republicans being led around by the nose by the extremists.

My point is eventually if it's offered enough times eventually the Republicans will take us up on the offer than what do we do.

Listen to what seating Democrats (in both the House and the Senate) are actually saying ... Those in Blue districts/States are saying "Cuts to SS, hell no"; Those in purplish districts/states and the Democratic leadership are saying, "Well, we'll look at a CCPI; but only if republicans will give on significant revenue (tax) increases."

So, if republicans do take up the offer, Democrats in Blue districts/state will say "Hell no"; Democrats in purplish districts/state will say, "Hell no, you haven't given enough on taxes for me to cut SS", and the deal dies.

[Bluenorthwest]

117. You advocated that Chained CPI long and hard, here is my favorite of your Pro Chained CPI posts

"Can we get honest here ...
for just a moment? Those decrying the this Chain CPI thing are self-interested folks, hiding behind the elderly, the poor, the disabled and/or veterans.

This "concern" for the poor and elderly and disabled and veterans is a cannard, because those that will be affected WILL NOT be the elderly or the poor or veterans or the disabled"

ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/1251297857


So the opponents of the Chained CPI have prevailed. The proponents looked sort of Republican for a few months, then lost. A good day for those of us who advocated strongly against this stupid idea.

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. I think you have reading comprehension issues ...

Here is my entire post:

Can we get honest here for just a moment? Those decrying the this Chain CPI thing are self-interested folks, hiding behind the elderly, the poor, the disabled and/or veterans.

This "concern" for the poor and elderly and disabled and veterans is a cannard, because those that will be affected WILL NOT be the elderly or the poor or veterans or the disabled; but those (non-poor, non-disabled, non-elderly, non-veterans) folks like me ... with (or planning on) some form of retirement income that is less than what we would like to have to live on.

But I understand the reason for the cannard ... it plays a lot better than "I want my SS with as much in COLAs as their willing to offer because I paid into it ... it's mine."

The fact is, from the beginning, every suggestion of instituting a CCPI has included statement indicating that these most vulnerable groups will be exempted from the change.

Nothing there, or anywhere in that thread, advocates for the CCPI. In fact, this is what I said about the CCPI;

I agree ... a CCPI stinks ... It'll cost me money, sometime in the future.

That is not advocacy.

In fact, I stated ... very clearly to you, there and everywhere else you pop up telling that lie ... I DO NOT/WOULD NOT support any cuts to Social security that affect the poor, the elderly, the disabled and veterans.

I would, however, entertain a formula, including a CCPI, that cut benefits for the wealthy ... I believe I put the (completely arbitrary) cut off at $250,000.

[Orsino]

131. It's the opposite of good policy.

While the administration fucks around with coy now-you-see-it talk about cuts, they are utterly failing to address the need for *increases* in retirement income guarantees.

While we waste our time arguing about whether cuts could actually pass right now, what party is left to work on enhancing SS benefits?

Well, we know who wins by our inaction.

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. Well, glad you asked ...

Expanding Social Security isn't just a fetish of the far left and our hero, Elizabeth Warren. Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), a freshman facing re-election in 2014, is a lead sponsor of the Harkin/Begich bill to make Social Security stronger.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/19/1256815/-Elizabeth-Warren-joins-expand-Social-Security-nbsp-team#

I love it when the team plays as a team!

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. Seems someone agrees with me ...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/obama-not-pretending-to-believe-in-grand-bargain.html

[Logical]

136. Want links of people who disagree? nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. Sure ...

But I doubt you'll find one that refutes my point that the CCPI proposal was a mere tactic and not an attempt to cut SS.

[Logical]

139. 8 dimensional chess syndrome! nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

140. Is that a link ...

That y were talking about?

[Logical]

141. No, it is a disease some here have. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

134. thanks 1. I'm glad you made it an OP.

It was too informative to let disappear in that other thread.

Personally, I could never handle the games you must play in politics, but I'm glad PBO knows how to do it!

This is a great glimpse of what the word "strategy" really means.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. Apparently ...

Folks would rather howl/rage than think . I also think folks have a really hard time conceding that this President is smarter than they are.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

142. and then there are the posts about "disagreement is not the same as hating"

oh really? That would be true----if they didn't ACT like hating.