I hold a straight forward opinion: Obama offered moving to Chained CPI because he's open to it

[Tom Rinaldo]

It is officially still now in play. Unofficially... it is still now in play. I do not subscribe to "1984" logic. War is not peace and peace is not war. When Obama says he would accept a deal that includes a Chained CPI on Social Security it really means... Obama will accept a deal that includes a Chained CPI on Social Security.

No doubt there is strategy and counter strategy at work. It would not be politics without it. There are those in fact who believe that Boehner had Obama convinced that the big deal was close at hand, which is why Obama offered the Chained CPI because Boehner convinced the President that is what he needed in order to get the votes. Maybe yes, maybe no. The opposite theory could also be true. Obama might have offered it now knowing the Republicans would reject it now, believing that the Republican response would strengthen the Democratic hand.

Either could be true but even if it is the latter that does nothing to convince me that Obama isn't willing to include the Chained CPI as part of the final deal, whatever it is whenever it is reached. I still take Obama at his word. The offer was and is legitimate. All of the inside chess analogies pertain to one thing only. How much will Obama get out of the Republicans on other aspects of the coming deals that will be made in return for that concession? The Fiscal Cliff will not stand unaltered in the next session of Congress. Obama is planning to give the Republicans the Chained CPI in return for that classic Sports World vague entity called "a player to be named later". That is where Obama's maneuvering lies.

Obama has thrown Republicans that bone and they will not allow it to be pried out of their jaws once it has been thrown to them. Republicans do still control the House. "Cuts in entitlements" is the biggest scalp left that they can come out of the coming talks with. It is the only political cover the Republican House can go home bragging to their constituents about later. Obama may have increased the value of that Social Security concession through clever political timing, by underlying how reasonable he is to the public while spotlighting how dysfunctional the Republicans are

Obama may well have just tricked the Republicans into going over the fiscal cliff and taking the blame for it. That gives him more leverage after January, true. It does not however give him dictatorial powers. A deal will be cut and a deal means that both sides get something out of it. There are many items on the negotiating table now, and the Republican hand is now weaker, but unless there is a Congressional Democratic revolt, Republicans will ultimately leave that table with what Obama promised them for their trouble, the Chained CPI for Social Security. That is the only scalp left of political value to them.

[forestpath]

1. So true. We got a reprieve. Nothing else. Republicans now know

that Obama is willing to deal away SS.

Gee, where is my confetti.

[BlueStreak]

32. You cannot put the tooth paste back in the tube

Obama gave away a huge amount of ground on social security, other big cuts, and taxes for the rich, and got zero in return. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. All he did was give Boehner a new starting point for the next round of blood-sucking.

Hopefully we will now go over the cliff. That is the only chance to get any of these things back. Obama should start the new year with a whole different deal that addresses jobs, gun violence and economic fairness as the main priorities, with debt reduction being a second, longer-term priority. The only way to get the toothpaste back into the tube is to move to a whole different proposal.

Obama will not do that, and come Jan 1, Boeihner will just keep sucking blood.

Where are all those Obama apologists now to tell us about this brilliant strategy we don't understand?

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

73. Perhaps PBO should have his election team go listen to why Americans

voted him back in for another 4. They can then report the findings back to PBO to give him perspective if needed.

[KoKo]

141. Here's Video of Obama in 2006 to Brookings Institute..that proves where he comes from..

Obama 2006—”Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938″

On launch day, enter soon-to-be–presidential candidate Barack Obama to the Robert Rubin–Roger Altman chambers. Remember, Rubin and Altman were Bill Clinton Bigs. Obama felt very much at home in this chamber, with these ideas. Very one of them.

You could call this pb[Obama’s NeoLiberal Manifesto. Watch and see if I’m wrong. It’s not long, it touches most of the bases, and tells you all you need to know about how Barack Obama would govern. (Points if you hear footsteps of 2013 as well.)

&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. Yes, that's our President, the man we put in office today

And contrary to what some here might say, overall I support him. Especially when I take off my Democratic party hat and simply view him as a citizen. We could do, and we have done, far worse than have Barack Obama as our President. I will point out to some who might read this thread one of Obama's frequent refrains; "the need for pragmatic solutions". Thise are the words of someone who is willing to deal. And there is a lot to be said for being willing to deal, we see the faults of the opposite mindset today, on the Republican side.

A pragmatist always looks closely at the political landscape before trying to find a solution. As opposed to those who are ideologically driven, a pragmatist does not attempt to bulldoze that landscape into submission, they adjuxt, they work around it, they take what the landscape allows. WE, members of DU and those who think like us, are a part of that political landscape. If we are overly pliant, solutions will be pursued by carving away at our positions If a gale only howls from the west those standing in it will be pushed to the right.

[vi5]

2. Bingo

The people running around now thumping their chests with victory will never admit this. But cuts to SS are on the table. Yes, the Republicans will need to negotiate more, but cuts to SS were offered up and the President has gone on record as willing to put those on the table and to extend the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K (Oh....o.k......up to $400K). I will go on record as saying I believe that eventually there will be a deal and that both of those things will be included.

[reformist2]

3. I agree that Obama was open to it, but I disagree that it is still viable.

The public is figuring out pretty quickly what this "chained CPI" is all about, and they don't like it. They know a lie when they hear one.

Also, I'd like to give some Dems the benefit of the doubt. It could be that they themselves have never studied the issue very much, and no idea just how much something like chained-CPI affected benefits down the road. After all, up until this week, it was a pretty obscure topic. If they come out and admit they were duped, I'll forgive them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. You are approaching this matter from a different angle

I have no doubt whatsoever that the President understands fully what the Chained CPI is and what it will do. He is a "Third Way" Democrat in that regard. He believes we have to "singe" the village in order to save it. I do believe that Obamna would fight tooth and nail to prevent Social Security from being privatized. I also believe he would fight tooth and nail to save it from what he would regard as major cuts. Unfortunately Obama doesn't regard the Chained CPI as a major cut - for most Americans it isn't, even thouh it can prove deadly over the lang term for a minority of us.

You are taliking about a hoped for political backlash against that change in Social Security, and that could happen, but it will now need to be a massive one to over ride what the President has already conceded. Obama never needs to run for reelection again. It all will come down to whether those Democrats who still will need to are willing to oppose both their own President and the Republican Party on this issue.

[pscot]

21. We have yet to see him fight tooth and nail

for anything. I don't trust him. I really have no idea what his core values are, or if he has any. I know what he says, but I no longer believe him.

[BlueStreak]

36. True, but timing and momentum are very important in these things.

If Obama and Boehner could have rammed this through this week, there would have been no stopping them. But they didn't and once again we can thank the idiot teabaggers for acting in the stupidest possible way. They possibly saved our butts -- again.

This delay gives organizations like AARP and others time to really get people cranked up about this. CPI is no longer a "technical adjustment". It has been exposed. By January 1, Obama could be feeling enough heat that he has no choice but to pull that back.

[Doctor_J]

4. Yep. There will be cuts

but they won't be as bad as the ones Obama was willing to give away, so it will hailed as a brilliant victory by the Kool-Aid drinkers. That's how the tax cuts got extended in 2010 and we ended up without a public option.

He still has not faced them down on anything. I am waiting for him to take one single stand, forcefully, undeniably, AGAINST the teabaggers and in favor of real Dems. It's been four years now and hope is almost gone.

[SHRED]

7. Agreed...

...You know when SS is put on the table ahead of oil subsidies and other corporate welfare that something is horribly wrong.

[whathehell]

12. +1000 n/t

[BlueStreak]

37. +10,000

[daleanime]

67. K&R.....

[marew]

134. Absolutely! n/t

[Myrina]

26. Applause

Thank you.

[sendero]

5. You just don't understand..

... n-dimensional chess. Look how well it worked for health care, for ending the Bush tax cuts that should have ended years ago, and for so many other things.

Every time Obama speaks, I am truly in awe of his message and how he delivers it. But his actions have as much to do with his speech as Bush shrub's did. It is as though all politicians have decided that only what they say matters, not what they do.

[BlueStreak]

40. At some point we have to ask how much worse Romney would have been

Don't get me wrong. Romney would be worse. It is always better to control the White House, especially with regard to SCOTUS appointments. But let's look at it realistically. Romney would have given the billionaires 100% of the tax cut. Obama is willing to give them 3/4 of that. Romney would have tried to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare. But that would have ended up in a giant collision and would not have past the Senate. So in fact, Romney would probably be doing something to Social Security roughly equal to the impact of chained CPI.

When do we see the benefits of actually winning this election?

The thing that makes me the most angry is that this is the last, best chance for progress. This is the point of maximum leverage. Absent "some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor", Obama will never have this much leverage in the last 4 years. And this is what he does with it?

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

[sendero]

49. My standard of comparison..

.. is not Romney or any other Republican. That's like saying Obama is better than a sharp stick in the eye. Sure.

My standard is what Obama SAYS vs. what Obama DOES.

[BlueStreak]

60. It is really shocking how easily he gives up on things

that, listening to his speeches, one would think are deeply held beliefs.

But part of the problem is that he tries to be very cagey in his speeches. You have to listen to ever word very carefully. For months, I pointed out that, in his stump speech he was very careful to never say he was going to insist on the Clinton rates for those over $250K. His speeches always talked about how good we had it with the Clinton economy and that it wouldn't be too much to ask that the top earners paid the Clinton rates. But when was as talking about his "bottom lines' it was always weasel-worded as is "I demand that the top earners 'pay a little more' ". And that is exactly what he did. without breaking a sweat, he gave up most of the Clinton rate. and moved up to $400K and will probably eventually move to $750K and 36%.

The Obama cheerleaders always lectured me about how I didn't know what I was talking about about and they I couldn't understand English. Well, there you go. I do understand English. I know that when a man of Obama's intellect is so careful to avoid stating a clear commitment, there is a very good reason for that.

Watch that man closely. He isn't saying what you think he is saying most of the time.

[subterranean]

107. In that respect, he is no different from most other politicians.

Obama has never been one to draw lines in the sand. He is always very careful in his statements to leave the door open to compromise. And that approach has gotten him elected president, twice. Why would he change now?

[BlueStreak]

111. I agree. He is just better at the rhetoric.

People think they hear him say things that he never ACTUALLY says. He sets expectations through oratorical trickery and then people are disappointed when they discover what he really meant all along.

[sendero]

144. I don't mind the weasel-words...

. so much, every politician uses them. I mind when a clearly worded non-interpretive statement is abandoned, and Obama does that a lot.

I can't tell if he is just a "people pleaser" or if he is really a wolf in sheep's clothing (talking progressive to hide his basic center-right beliefs) or what. I certainly thought that after 4 years of derision, hatred and disrespect he would stop trying to play nice with the opposition but so far I don't think anything has really changed.

The good news is it looks like we are going over the cliff and IMHO that puts the Democrats in a better position than the Republicans.

[BlueStreak]

147. "Better position", true

It eliminates the issue of tax increases, and this is the main reason why the House was so dysfunctional. So something will pass soon after January 1, I have no doubt.

But what will that be?

The FIRST proposal Obama made was to the right of the Simpson-Bowles proposal -- less revenue and more spending cuts -- and then Obama just kept negotiating himself farther and farther to the right. I don't think he gets any of that back after "the cliff".

[dawg]

85. If "President" Romney (ugh) had proposed what President Obama just proposed ...

it would be DOA in the U.S. Senate with ZERO chance of actually passing.

And none of my DU friends would be yelling at me for being against it.

[BlueStreak]

112. :)

[ProSense]

8. Here's the problem

No doubt there is strategy and counter strategy at work. It would not be politics without it. There are those in fact who believe that Boehner had Obama convinced that the big deal was close at hand, which is why Obama offered the Chained CPI because Boehner convinced the President that is what he needed in order to get the votes. Maybe yes, maybe no. The opposite theory could also be true. Obama might have offered it now knowing the Republicans would reject it now, believing that the Republican response would strengthen the Democratic hand.

Either could be true but even if it is the latter that does nothing to convince me that Obama isn't willing to include the Chained CPI as part of the final deal, whatever it is whenever it is reached. I still take Obama at his word. The offer was and is legitimate. All of the inside chess analogies pertain to one thing only. How much will Obama get out of the Republicans on other aspects of the coming deals that will be made in return for that concession? The Fiscal Cliff will not stand unaltered in the next session of Congress. Obama is planning to give the Republicans the Chained CPI in return for that classic Sports World vague entity called "a player to be named later". That is where Obama's maneuvering lies.

Everyone is reacting to a leak of the negotiations, and the WH confirmed that Boehner brought it to the table and the President included it, tentatively until the detail could be worked out, that is the part about protecting the most vulnerable and exempting key parts of the program. That's it. The fact still remains the President didn't make Boehner an offer he could accept.

As for securing the votes, really? There is no way that proposal passes the House, and evidently Boehner was also bluffing because he didn't include it in his own proposal.

Boehner Plan B does not include chained CPI? Take it off the table
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022040245

Obviously it wasn't a serious offer, and both sides were playing set up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Yes Boehner didn't have the votes. But we've been through that door before

I honestly dont know what it is with Boehner, how either he so misreads his power to influence his caucus or how he manages to convince others that he has power that he doesn't have, but we've been through grand bargain talks before this current round, and the exact same thing happened. Obama was willing to meet Boehner half way (in his own words) and then Boehner backed out and scuttled the negotiations. So I am not convinced that the President was convinced that the outline of a bigger deal that he and Boehner were kicking around this time was all pure shadow boxing. Maybe he thought the combination of the recent national election, the looming fiscal cliff, and sequestation being triggered, would lead to a different outcome this time. I dunno, I'm an agnostic on this topic.

A case can be made from the scenario you ran through above that Boehner tricked Obama into declaring support for a Chained CPI, and then outed him on it, believing once that genie was out of the bottle Democrats couldn't shove it back in again later. We will see. I do believe at the level of the game being played, any offer made becomes "serious" once it has been made. Yes perhaps it can be walked back later, but that isn't always easy, and itis far safer not to make an offer you are not prepared to live with in the first place. Politicians, like diplomats, have to be skilled at speaking in ways that do not pin them down to undesirable positions before they determin they are willing to actually go there.

I agree with you that it is possible for a strong enough public outcry to make the Chained CPI toxic, but that is what it will now take to drive a stake through the heart of that beast. Perhaps that is underway. The jury is still out.

[ProSense]

29. I guess you're

I honestly dont know what it is with Boehner, how either he so misreads his power to influence his caucus or how he manages to convince others that he has power that he doesn't have, but we've been through grand bargain talks before this current round, and the exact same thing happened. Obama was willing to meet Boehner half way (in his own words) and then Boehner backed out and scuttled the negotiations. So I am not convinced that the President was convinced that the outline of a bigger deal that he and Boehner were kicking around this time was all pure shadow boxing. Maybe he thought the combination of the recent national election, the looming fiscal cliff, and sequestation being triggered, would lead to a different outcome this time. I dunno, I'm an agnostic on this topic.

...attributing this to luck? I mean, we're being saved by Boehner time and again.

Given what happened last time, why wouldn't he realize that this was the best offer and jump on it?

Again, you're reacting to fluid negotiations, an offer that was leaked and rejected.

[uponit7771]

33. It's luck when it happens over and over and over again....yeap, they call it luck

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. The fact is neither of us can safely predict with certainty how variables will play out

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

I respect you ProSense in some ways despite and in some ways because of the ways we have sometimes disagreed before. I know we have a fundemental difference in hindsight over whehter or not a public option was possible to get from health care reform. We can honorably agree to dsagree on that, but at one point you were reassuring everyone that Obama wouldn't sign off on any health care reform that didn't include a public option. Obviously you can not assure me now that the final deal won't include a Chained CPI either. It seems you now expect that it won't but there are ample grounds for fearing that it might.

I'll remind you also that nothing has been settled, everything is fluid. You claim that Boehner saved us before, but did he really? I say neither of us will know for sure on that score either, until this all is said and done. What came out of the last discussions was a trillion dollars in spending cuts with no offsetting revenue increases. Instead the Bus tax cuts did not expire as they were scheduled to, they were extended in full, even for the rich, for two additional years. I understand why Obama did that but the fact remains, extending those tax cuts in full rather than allowing them to expire on incomes over $250,000 a year resulted in a loss of about 200 Billion in revenues over that time period, on top of that trillion dollar cut..

Boehner may have "saved us" from cuts in Socoal Security last time, but he got something out of us in return, and the issue still is alive and now officially "on the table" with negotiations still pending. I fell that my concerns are valid, of course I hope that ultimately they will not be validated.

[woo me with science]

16. So if it "obviously" was not a serious offer,

why all the 180 degree posts by Prosense, our President's greatest supporter, expressing alarm about the offer?

Could it be that some of us were right, and we were witnessing a cynical, despicable attempt to propagandize the masses into being grateful and joyous when the offer is ostentatiously withheld at the last minute and we are "saved" by implementing a slightly less painful Third Way austerity package?

People are sick of being jerked around, and we are especially sick and tired of seeing this President terrify seniors and validate despicable Republican lies and talking points about the economy as part of the jerking.

There are only two possible outcomes to this debacle: We'll either get a vicious, devastating assault on seniors...

OR we'll get the disgusting spectacle of a Democratic Party seeking adulation for having put Social Security on the table AGAIN, utterly unnecessarily, and having validated Republican talking points AGAIN, utterly unnecessarily, while helping Republicans achieve some version of austerity.

There is no way to finish this debacle without austerity, even if we go over the cliff, and we have Obama's validation of this debt ceiling SCAM to thank for that.


BULLSHIT that it's a victory. Let's get our compasses straight as Democrats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2044415

[rhett o rick]

20. It appears that Pres Obama was willing to use SS benefit cuts as a bargaining tool.

Unless he emphatically denies that he was, I figure he was. SS should never be on the table or even used as a bargaining tool. It is political suicide for Democrats.

[BlueStreak]

41. Let me explain the basics of negotiating.

You can never take any "give" back.

You don't "give" without a solid "get".

Boehner just worked him. Boehner didn't have to give up anything and he now has a new starting point for the next round.

n-dimensional chess, my ass.

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

[coalition_unwilling]

106. Oh, puh-leeze. Obama gave nothing away, Boner couldn't even get his own caucus to

support him and there's now a fatal schism in the Rape-publi-scum: Norquist on one side, Club for Growth on the other. I'd say that's a monumental victory for our Poker Player in Chief. Obama bluffed the fuck out the Rape-publi-scum and, rather than call his bluff, they folded their hand like the cheap punks, putzes and chumps they are.

I'd love to go head-to-head with Boner over the poker table. I would clean him out.

[BlueStreak]

113. OK. Tell me where you think the next round of negotiations STARTS

Do you thing Obama goes back to $250,000? Do you think he takes chained CPI off the table?

He only does that if AARP and the rest of us beat him bloody for unilaterally collapsing on that point.

The only way we get any of those things back is by pulling the support from Obama, the way Boenher's side did to him.

You don't keep making concessions when the opponent isn't serious.

[coalition_unwilling]

136. What do you mean 'starts'? Legislation begins in the House. It's on Boner or his

successor to make the next bid (after Christmas). Obama bluffed and instead of calling his bluff, Rape-publi-scum folded like the cheap punks and putzes we always knew they were. They got nothing except a trio of deuces but Obama's got a straight flush.

[BlueStreak]

142. Do you think they expect to go back to the $250K limit and no chained CPI?

Of course not. Obama already gave that away. They won't give it back. Besides, Obama doesn't have the balls to say "You saw my best deal and walked away. Now you get less and will be happy with it."

[sabrina 1]

152. So then, we can expect Obama to remove the Chained CPI or anything that has

to do with SS from the Deficit table now?

Why would he continue to keep SS in negotiations where it does not belong now that we know the Republicans are going to reject ANY offer he makes?

This would save all of us the trouble of calling and donating and wasting our time trying to get it removed.


Most of all it would relieve Seniors of the stress and worry they have been subjected to.

I have to admit, I do not see what this is supposed to have accomplished and so far no one who is saying 'he wasn't serious' has explained what his strategy was. What did he intend to accomplish by including SS cuts IF he wasn't serious? What was the point?

I would love an explanation because I just don't get this 'chess' game at all.


Imo, if you want to play chess with Repubs and you want to show them up, your force THEM to demand SS cuts. YOU do not offer them up.

You give them a deal without SS and let them make that demand.

This supposed strategy of Dems committing this cardinal political sin does not harm Republicans at all. They are getting CREDIT for turning cuts to SS while the president is being slammed for it. So can you explain it to me?

[coalition_unwilling]

155. We've disagreed about this also in another thread, I think. I see it as Obama

bluffing, making an offer he knew Rs would have to refuse (because it raised taxes on their base). Boner, in true putz\chump form, didn't call the bluff but instead folded his hand.

See this link for an entertaining blow-by-blow: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193770576333616.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Friggin' priceless!

[sabrina 1]

164. I'm sorry, but he was not bluffing. Nancy Pelosi certianly doesn't think so

Worse, she has stated that using the Chained CPI to cut the benefits of Seniors is a good idea and 'will strengthen SS'. She states that she agrees with the President. So does Steny Hoyer and both were ready to go 'twist arms' in Congress to get this passed if the Repubs had agreed to it.

The Repubs DO agree with it. But they oppose raising taxes on their wealthy bosses even more.

Knowing this Obama offered them a carrot, in the form of the Chained CPI hoping they would give HIM the tax increases. I have zero doubt that when they do finally accept an offer, it will have cuts to SS in it.

This is the third time now he has offered cuts to SS. I'm sorry, this has caused great concern to Seniors. You don't play games like this, which would be cruel. And I do not believe this is a game. He meant it. Like Pelosi, he doesn't see cutting the benefits of Seniors as real 'cuts'.

They thought they could get this by progressives, elderly advocacy groups, the unions etc and the general public who would not know what it really meant.

They were wrong. People are wider awake now than ever before.

And if this was such a great strategy, then why are Republicans now getting credit for 'saving SS' from a Dem President?

I cannot think of a worse strategy than to play with the future of America's must vulnerable people. They do not have any right to do so. That fund has zero to do with the Deficit and by placing it on the table, they are LYING, they are saying that it is part of the problem that caused the deficit. That is a lie.

Take it off the table, or do not try to tell us this is just a ruse. Very few people believe it anymore.

I see NO benefit to this whatsoever. I wish someone would explain it to me. I am not usually so dense that if something is this good as we are being told, that I would fail to see it so completely.

[coalition_unwilling]

165. Obama's bluff meant nothing without the seeming backing of Pelosi and Hoyer. Obama gambled

the Rape-publi-scum would never agree to a) tax increases on the rich and b) taking debt ceiling off the table. That's why it's called a 'bluff.' In this case, Obama's gamble has paid off in spades, as he and we got the whole pot (taxes going up on the rich after Jan. 1, cuts to defense budget and no cuts to SS or core safety net programs) and Boner and the Rape-publi-scum get 'nothing.'

Did you read the link to the WSJ article? If you're having trouble accessing it, KPete has now published a thread with a recap of same article from Salon. I gained a whole new respect for Obama after I read it and I think you will too.

[sabrina 1]

166. I generally agree with your comments CU, so not big deal that on this we are

never going to agree. It really is very simple. SS should never have been mentioned in this debate on the Deficit. I really do not care what games they are playing, the message that has gone out is a disastrous one. And the reaction of people across the country proves that.

By placing it on the Deficit Discussion table, he has strengthened the Republican lie that SS had something to do with the deficit. That's it, after we have all worked so hard to eliminate that perception. That is so harmful and so hard to stop. A simple statement from the Dem Leadership that SS would never be mentioned again in the deficit debates, would have done so much good. This is why we vote for Democrats. But once again, we see them give credibility to an egregious Republican lie.


If Obama wanted to show up the Republicans, all he had to do was make it public that he was asking Repubs to agree that the top most wealthy people in the country need to start paying their fair share. Period. That he intended to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

There was no need to throw SS onto that table. I fail to see what the point was, if what you are saying is that he was never serious. If that is the case, the Republicans would have refused to raise taxes on the wealthy and they would not be able to claim that they 'saved SS from cuts' which is now happening.

If this is supposed to be some kind of planned strategy, it has definitely failed badly.

It has angered every Progressive Org in the country, the Unions and every SS, Senior and Disabled advocacy group all of whom have joined forces now to watch and then organize against, any Dem member of Congress who even whispers any support for this.

Are you claiming that everyone was involved in this 'scheme'? Nancy Pelosi, Hoyer, Bernie Sanders, the entire Progressive Caucus, and every Progressive advocacy group, every Union, from all over the country, ALL of them are part of this game?

I can assure you I am NOT pretending to be angry about it and will continue to be until I hear a clear statement from this president that he has now removed SS from the Deficit discussions. That's all we need to hear. So far, we have not.

[coalition_unwilling]

168. I actually agree with you almost always! :) So this may just be a glass half-full, half-empty

type of disagreement (perspective).

In fact, I agree with you that SS should never have entered the discussion. With one important caveat. This batch of Rape-publi-scum are certifiably bat-shit crazy and yet, AND YET, they still control one house of Congress. It's not Obama's fault that he's having to negotiate with insane psychopaths whose sole objective is to sabotage governanance, not administer it. The proof: after Boner cobbled together the so-called 'Plan B,' Norquist reluctantly agreed to support it, but the Club for Growth announced it would primary any R who voted for it. The Rs are certifiably insane and I'm not sure what Obama can do about it other than what he is doing, i.e., appear reasonable and conciliatory, the better to expose their bat-shit obduracy and whack-a-doodliness. In the 30-some years I've watched politics with varying degrees of interest, I've never seen anything like it before. Even the unctuous Gingrich knew how and when to cut a deal.

[Marr]

63. So now it "obviously wasn't a serious offer"?

Oh, god-- you're hilarious.

[SugarShack]

161. the protecting the most vunerable part is for vets and those on disability. not others!

[sabrina 1]

167. We are reacting to what Nancy Pelosi stated. Is she a liar, stupid, not

aware of what the deal she is going to be asked to support really was?

We do not read minds. We read words and we watch actions. What I saw was this president placing SS on a table where it never belonged, three times now.

Then I saw the Dem Leadership state that they think the Chained CPI is a great idea and that they 'back the president on this'.

I also read on the website of the Third Way that the Chained CPI was the way to go, this I read quite a while ago along with a boast by them of how much influence they have on this WH.

I don't care what games are being played, find a way to play them without SS because it doesn't belong in these discussions and no Democrat who supports will get the support of those who up to now, have always, no matter how reluctantly stuck with the Dems. We will have to find another way.

[HereSince1628]

9. I feel that way too, not because I can get in his head, but because

in my 6th decade, I've seen and been involved in a lot of negotiations. Only dishonest negotiators offer things they wouldn't accept.

If I accept that Obama was toying with Boehner, I've got to diminish my opinion of Obama.

I don't like being in the position of thinking Obama was just trying to embarrass his opposites.

I've always thought he had better character than that, I'd like to continue in that.

Maybe I like him too much?

[jsr]

24. "Only dishonest negotiators offer things they wouldn't accept."

No truer words.

[byeya]

10. In science, the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation and in this case Obama

was willing to cut Social Security.

How about that Nuke plant in Georgia being constructed with aid of our tax dollars. Why isn't that
a program ripe for eliminating? The state of GA doesn't like socialism does it?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

11. I think it's important that Americans let him know that WE know...

...what the deal is. I wrote him a letter: http://www.sevenbowie.com/2012/12/a-letter-to-the-president-one-in-a-series/. I want him to know that I know where the damn bull shit in the buckwheat. He'll either get a clue or he won't. But he needs to hear from his REAL bosses - from US - from real, everyday Americans on this issue: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

"Ohhhhh it won't do any good." (?)

Well, it can't hurt, can it?

[OldDem2012]

13. Meanwhile, by appearing conciliatory and open to negotiation, the President's support grows....

....while the GOP Tea-Nazis look worse with each outing.

The GOP Tea-Nazis will never get Chained-CPI, something the President and the Senate Minority Leader know for a fact.

But, no matter what the President does, certain extremists on this board will NEVER support him. That's also a fact.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Ya talking about me, Mister?

Man or woman up to it if you are, and be prepared to back up that accusation with facts, because my facts say you are wrong and I can prove it.

[OldDem2012]

19. Yes, I'm talking to you DIRECTLY and PLAINLY, and I'm not going to be intimidated by you....

...or anyone else on this board.

If the "extremist" shoe fits you, so be it, if not, then stop whining like a little girl.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. "no matter what the President does, certain extremists on this board will NEVER support him."

That is what I was asking if you stood by in my case. I don't mind you calling me an extremist even though I think you are way off in that definition. Still, it's subjective, a view point, call my positions extremist if you want to, it's your right. As to your claim that I will NEVER support Obama, that is something subject to fact checking, and obviously you didn't bother to.

And if you claim that anything I said above was an attempt to intimidate you, some might well call that whining.

[OldDem2012]

38. Backing down are we? You're the one who acted like I was accusing you directly....

....even though my comment was general in nature, so therefore you must believe you are indeed an "extremist" and that the shoe fit you very snugly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. You responded to my thread so I asked you if you included me personally

I think that was a reasonable question. To clarify, I don't care now nor did I care when I asked whether or not you think I'm an extremist. I wanted to know if you included me in your group of posters you claim would NEVER support Obama. I have defended Obama on this board in the past and no doubt I will again in the future. I don't always defend him but I have worked for his election twice. If you want to discuss the matter of my support further you can pm me to do so rather than us going down this sidetrack tangent further on this public thread.

[OldDem2012]

105. You attacked me personally and I responded in kind. You can dish it out but can't take it. nt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Where were you personally attacked?

I wanted to know if your post was addressed to me personally, and if it was then you made an attack on me, right? Even leaving aside the extremeist accusation which most would view as an attack, you claimed on a Democratic Board that I woild NEVER support this Democratic President. THAT is a personal attack What i said in reply was simple, if you are going to attack me have your facts straight. Your allegation is false and the evidence exists in DU archives to prove it is false many times over. If you seriously want to explore that further, I already invited you to PM me.

[heaven05]

89. he

protesteth too much.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

17. Voting for him wasn't enough?

Is Obama a king who should never be criticized?

[OldDem2012]

22. Unless you're one of the "extremists" I mentioned in my post, my comments shouldn't....

....bother you in the least.

Being rationally critical of the President is one thing, but the irrational and constant knee-jerk criticism of the President is something I have a great deal of trouble understanding.

[SidDithers]

35. Is calling him a "lying republican" the day after he was re-elected what you consider criticism?..nt

Sid

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. Are you a Democrat? I think that is a fair question. Are you even eligible to be a Democrat?

You are up in Canada.

Are you eligible to be a Democrat and vote in our elections?

[SidDithers]

52. ...

Sid

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. "Whatever the question"? The questions are "Are you a Democrat?" "Are you even eligible

to be a Democrat?"

The questions are written in plain English.

Since you are in Canada, I would also translate the questions into French if I could. But I can't. And I assume that you have a sufficient command of the English language.

[SidDithers]

68. ...

Sid

[AnotherMcIntosh]

71. I think you're evasiveness confirms that you are not a Democrat and not eligible to be a Democrat.

At least the Third-Way Democrats who are seeking to undermine traditional Democratic principles are registered Democrats in this country.

[SidDithers]

88. ...

Sid

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. You say, "Whatever the question, guns are not the answer". That's not what Canadians said in 1812.

[Bobbie Jo]

75. USA! USA! USA!

Incredibly weak.

is the most appropriate response to the "you're a Canadian!11" card.

New material....get some.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. "DEMOCRATIC Underground." "DEMOCRATIC Underground." "DEMOCRATIC Underground." Got it?

[Bobbie Jo]

79. ...

It sure as shit isn't Green Underground.

Got it?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. Were you home schooled? Are you still in school?

I have absolutely no idea as to what you mean by saying

"It sure as shit isn't Green Underground."

If you are using the word "Green" the way that Chicago politicians do, please be advised that, notwithstanding his long history of being a Chicago politician, President Obama has not been a Chicago politician for some time and he would not take money on a national level to provide quid-pro-quo services.

[Bobbie Jo]

103. Home schooled?

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Is that the best you can do?

Yet another jerkish post.

At least you didn't call me a Canadian.

eta: I'll put my "schooling" up against yours any day, my friend.

Would you like to see my birth certificate AND my transcripts?

[Bluenorthwest]

121. Sid in interjecting his opinin about programs that are hugely important to millions of Americans

which Canadians do not take part in. They have their own programs for retirement and it would also be shitty for an American to advocate cuts to any nation's programs because it is not our business.
If Sid has any stake in our system, it would be a stake made of investments and potential profits, as that is the only stake in our system the law would allow him to have.
Sorry you are unable to understand that an American going to France and whining about the French system is just a tacky and arrogant person and that the same is true for any national when commenting on the social politics of a nation that is not their own.
He's not a part of our system. We are not part of his. That fact does have some bearing on how we should carry ourselves when discussing either system.
Sid posts emoticons, but my Mom is in the hospital, and her benefits are paid by OUR system, not Canada's. Emoticons. Hospital. Yep, that's pure international class Sid has going on. When my Mom was healthy and younger, we traveled the world together and she taught me that in international settings, American opinion might not even be welcome so don't be what they called 'the ugly American' and criticize the politics of the places you visit. She said 'ask them about their politics, tell them about OUR politics'. She was correct. She prevented me from being a jerk international. Some on DU clearly did not have such wisdom in their upbringing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

156. You're right. I, too, have been to many countries. I wouldn't even think about trying to influence

their retirement systems.

I certainly wouldn't do it while giving anyone the impression that I was a citizen of their country.

[sabrina 1]

157. I think by now most people realize that there are certain people here who

are best ignored. And the above string of posts is a perfect example of why. This is a discussion board so when someone responds to every effort to discuss an issue with the ridiculous little roly poly laughing guy, after a while people simply either put them on ignore or as soon as they see their handle, skip over them and yawn.

Your comment regarding going to other people's countries and forcing your opinions on them is true and most reasonable people would refrain from doing so.

However, around the world there is a small contingency of people who absolutely hate what they perceive to be the 'Left' and they do not recognize any borders.

You can spot them on many internet boards. It is imo, a Global anti-progressive, anti-democratic contingency which is thankfully, shrinking.

[Bobbie Jo]

160. Here, you dropped this.

Passive aggressive insults are still insults.


Edited for clarity.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

101. .

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s

By Ian Swanson
The Hill
Dec 14, 2012

President Obama said his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

In a Thursday interview with a Miami-based local television station, Obama said he thinks few people believe he wants to impose socialism on the country.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

"I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair," he continued. "I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure.

More: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

[UnrepentantLiberal]

93. It's like having a discussion with the joker on Batman.

70 ignores tells you all you need to know.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

96. You're right.

[Bobbie Jo]

99. Glass houses, etc....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217191&sub=trans

All you need to know, indeed.

[ohiosmith]

110. This post was alerted on. The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand.

At Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:39 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Are you a Democrat? I think that is a fair question. Are you even eligible to be a Democrat?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2046147

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

The first in a series of responses calling to attention that Sid is Canadian. DU has members from all over the world. They should be free to comment whenever they like without having the fact that they're from another country thrown in their faces. Rude and very inappropriate. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:44 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is a reasonable question? The poster is not challenging Sid's right to comment. Leave the post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well, Sid could answer the question with similar language used by the alerter. Instead, he's acting like a 3 year-old.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

115. Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

162. Good jury decision.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

100. .

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s

By Ian Swanson
The Hill
Dec 14, 2012

President Obama said his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

In a Thursday interview with a Miami-based local television station, Obama said he thinks few people believe he wants to impose socialism on the country.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

"I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair," he continued. "I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure.

More: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

[whathehell]

92. Excellent question, especially since many of us did more than that --donated, volunteered, etc.

This is bullshit...He won his second term it's time that HE did something

for US and that does NOT mean trashing the party's SIGNATURE program

which also happens to be a lifeline for vulnerable populations like the elderly and disabled vets!

I do not believe, and have not believed for a long time, that he is, or ever was, more than a moderate

Republican posing as a Democrat.

[BlueStreak]

43. What difference does that make?

He ALREADY had support and wouldn't use it.

[whathehell]

95. Thank you. n/t

[woo me with science]

77. That's the stupidest thing I've read here all day.

Polls have *consistently* shown that vast majorities of Americans, across party lines, oppose any attempt to cut SS benefits.

Ratings for Congress are in the toilet PRECISELY because of cynical corporate games and betrayals like this. Americans are sick to death of seeing legislation and proposals coming out of Congress that bear no earthly resemblance, time and time again, to what we have said we want.

What unadultereated Third Way BULLSHIT.

[OldDem2012]

151. What's even more interesting is how many DU posters objected to the word "extremist".....

....as if I were talking directly to them.

Interesting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Two things ...

First:

Meanwhile, by appearing conciliatory and open to negotiation, the President's support grows....
....while the GOP Tea-Nazis look worse with each outing.

Exactly!

The GOP Tea-Nazis will never get Chained-CPI, something the President and the Senate Minority Leader know for a fact.

Why do people talk about a chained-CPI, without including what was indicated in the rumored deal ... protections for the most vulnerable and exemption for specific programs? Contrary to popular belief, a chain CPI is not evil, in and of, itself ... anymore than the current CPI model is adequate. The fact is, the chained CPI does reflect consumers' buying patterns, and therefore is a more accurate formula.

The problem comes in with the elderly and at the lower end of the income scale, both of which can be dealt with.

And another thing ... I agree; there are some here that will never support President Obama, ever.

[sabrina 1]

158. How does a Democratic President support 'grow' by offering to cut SS?

Have you seen any of the responses to this offer throughout the country?

And did you know that Republicans are now getting credit for 'saving SS from cuts'??


Again, explain this supposed strategy please where the president didn't 'really mean it'.

I just received an email today from one of the Progressive Organizations asking that SS be removed completely from the Deficit Table. THEY are THANKING REPUBLICANS for stopping the acceptance of the President's offer to cut SS!

So, once again, explain this strategy please. So far all I see are 'he's a great chess player! He's a great chess player!! But no one is explaining why!

[Arcanetrance]

122. I don't think a lot of the people questioning the presidents chained cpi proposal are extremists.

Personally I think a lot of them see it as now that Pandora box is open it can't be closed maybe he proposed it knowing it wouldn't be passed or accepted but in the real world nothings for certain. But I think the op and other people are pointing out now this can't be walked back all negotiations are started with that in mind the news media addresses the negotiations with that in mind and most importantly the people of the country now see the negotiations through that frame of mind the president did some damage to his image that may not recover.

[Bobbie Jo]

123. Your post was alerted

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
At Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Meanwhile, by appearing conciliatory and open to negotiation, the President's support grows....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2045886

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is a direct, personal attack on Tom Rinaldo, which the poster confirms in post #19. We should try to talk about ideas and events here, not attack each other.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:28 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Petty alert. The poster is absolutely right. Deal with it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter was baiting this poster in order to make it into a personal attack, and therefore alert. I don't agree with poster, but this should not be hidden.


Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There is no personal attack in this post that I am asked to adjudicate, if you have a problem with another post, I suggest you alert on that post
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't believe it is a personal attack so much as a personal opinion...
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tom Rinaldo]

146. For the record - I was not the allerter

I was and am perfectly willing to have this discussion in public - I am comfortable in my position and perfectly ready and able to defend it. In fact I think I accidently pushed a button in my initial response which was actually meant to be semi tongue in cheek. "Ya talking about me, Mister?" The Ya was meant as the give away. I was playfully getting in the posters face though the point I was making was still serious. I would have voted to leave that post alone also, though I appreciate the fact that some saw it as an over the line attack on me..

[OldDem2012]

149. Ha! Thanks for the heads-up! nt.

[madfloridian]

139. Wait, now. Are those like me who supported him, yet question his policies...extremists?

That's a really strong statement. That's calling me and Tom extremists, and I much resent it.

[Enrique]

18. for every other politician in the world

that would be obvious.

But Barack Obama is in another category where people imagine the most unlikely things about him. People on both sides do it, they look at him but they don't see him, all they see is their fantasy Obama.

[pscot]

30. I'd like to cop a plea on that charge

It was 2008 and I was all full of the Kumbaya spirit. That didn't survive the Innaugural.

[BlueStreak]

44. I would agree, if by "fantasy Obama" you mean "Obama the Orator"

as opposed to "Obama the Negotiator".

The man stands for nothing. Ever. There is no principle at his core that he won't negotiate away.

The teabaggers are morons, but at least they have some things they will stand firm on.

[merrily]

70. I respectfully disagree that he stands for nothing.

Before his first election, he told the Washington Post that he would cut a new (meaning different) deal with the American people on "entitlements" and he has gone in that direction ever since, with the possible exception of his 2012 campaign speeches.

He does stand for a number of things. However, it may be that he stands for things that are different from the ones that you stand for or that you would like him to stand for.

I don't think that he caves or gets outsmarted, either. I think he pretty much gets what he wants.

[grantcart]

23. Or could it be Tom that you are reacting to only a smart part of the equation?

For example I don't see anywhere in your reaction any discussion of the additional 5% income offset.

Here is Lawrence O'Donnell talking with Robert Greenstein about it


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/#50254663



Seems to be a whole lot more involved and a whole lot more favorable than your side of the story, Tom.

I find your opinion to be uncharacteristically 'quick on the draw' when it comes to the facts, usually you seem to take a much more reasoned and wider view of things.

The other point, made again by Lawrence is that 'nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to'.

[buzzroller]

48. Thank You

Thank You for the link. Robert Greenstein is one of the best and his comments put the entire debate in a different perspective.
However, all the opposition to any cuts in social security will strengthen the President's hand in negotiations because it makes it apparent that he is really offering things his base does not like. I believe this is true even if, as Greenstein states, this change as implemented as he described (offsetting 5% after 20 years, exceptions for low income seniors, applied also to tax brackets), would not do much damage as part of a greater deal.

[grantcart]

50. I was going to welcome you to DU but you seem to be around since 2003

Please post more often, lol.

[buzzroller]

55. Thanks for the welcome

I have been following DU for a long time but never posted until recently. I am retired now and don't have to worry about what I say. Plus I have time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. grantcard, of course nothing has been nailed down yet, talk about stating the obvious

You are not suggesting that I am not aware of that, are you? One of the nice advances in coverage of political science over the last ten years or so is an increasing acknowledgment that the behavior of the core base of both political parties has an effect on the ultimate positions taken by both political parties. The extent it matters varies of course from situation to situation and even from party to party, but activists on both sides can still influence ultimate policy between election days, not just on them. I see no advantage here for maintaining silence untill "everything is agreed to".

One reason why it has taken a while to reply to you here is that of course I went back and watched the video link you left. I was curious if you were referring to what I thought you were referring to when you noted the 5% income offset. You were. grantcart that only kicks in for people who manage to live to their mid 80's. It's true that many wealthier Americans are managing to do so but there has been little upside to life expectancy for the poor and working classes. Most people in those catagories will long be dead before they qualify for that "income offset".

In the intervening twenty years people must skimp and scrape to get by, at least those who are heavily dependent on their Social Security checks will have to. When people skimp on basics they engage in behavior that is not inducive to greater health and longer life. Especially when skimping proves inadaquate and heat food and shelter still run out.

Call the Chained CPI anything you want. Call it "more accurate" (except maybe for *cough* seniors) as the guest Lawrence had on claimed. It results in Seniors getting less benefits in the future than they do today - based on constant dollars. It's a cut that starts small but constantly accumulates - just like we were all taught as children that the interest on our savings would some day add up to something of some significance. They will.

There are many ways of reading the political tea leaves about what is going on. I will grant you that. But you haven't ventured into those weeds with me to differ on anything I wrote other than to say I was "quick on the draw" when it comes to facts. I stand ready to discuss this further with you if you choose, but I could be called off to work at any point now. If that happens it might take awhile for me to get back to you.

[grantcart]

98. First of all lets get some of the terms correct

"Call it more accurate."


One of the technical aspects of the discussion (putting aside the question of who it affects) is the question of the most accurate calculator of index.

I don't have time to investigate it but you seem to be on top of it.

A number of people, even on the left, seem to indicate that economists at the peer review level have concluded (without apparent dissent) that the new formula is a more accurate predictor of inflation and that seems to be backed up with studies.

It seems like it would be helpful to establish what indicator actually is considered more accurate. Given that I don't see any liberals charging that the status quo is more accurate it seems that our defense of it is not that it is more accurate but that it helps the elderly more.

So which formula is held by economists to be the more accurate?

Greenfield advances an argument that it may not be more accurate for the elderly but suggests that the studies haven't been done to actually prove it.

There are many ways to read the tea leaves.

For example you allege that

"Obama, how DARE you cave on tax cuts for the rich & then raid Social Security to pay for them"


When there is neither any evidence that the President has caved on tax cuts for the rich or the rather fanciful explanation that he was going to raid Social Security to pay for them.

Do you now regret that OP?

Does it give you any pause that LO who served for both Moynihan and the Senate Finance Committee doesn't share your concern?

Oh and "the guest" that you don't seem to be familiar with, here is what people have said about him

Greenstein & Co. have been there for every hearing, every amendment and every budget reconciliation, ensuring that the interests of the poor and working class are considered

"They are the national conscience on issues having to do with income and poverty," says Wendell Primus, a policy adviser to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

"They've given low-income people a seat at the table," Charlie Rangel

"The center was among liberal groups that criticized President Bill Clinton for not vetoing the Republican version of welfare reform, predicting it would throw a million Americans into poverty. But two days after Clinton signed the legislation, Greenstein was back at the White House, eventually helping roll back some of the bill's most draconian provisions".

I also found it interesting that Howard Dean said on Maddow yesterday that it was a very technical issue and that he always had found Pelosi on top of the subject and that he was happy to hear her reassurance on the entire package.

I have always considered you one of the most balance and fair minded posters but it appears that you have joined the DU "shoot first and ask questions later" herd to brand Obama as the guy who "caved in" on tax cuts for the rich and then "raided Social Security".

Unfortunately I just don't have more time to spend on the subject.

Having to choose between those that are apparently looking for an inflammatory OP title to get a bunch of recs on the one hand and O'Donnell, Greenstein, Dean, and the President on the other, I am going to have to go with the later.

I would have put more credence in your OP if instead of having to search for the other parts of the package you would have commented on the entire package on the OP and not had to drag it out in the replies.

Now that you have had a chance to get a little more up to date on what is understood to be at least some of the other parts of the PROPOSED negotiations will you add that to your OP or just let it stand as is?

Do you still stand by your well loved:

Obama, how DARE you cave on tax cuts for the rich & then raid Social Security to pay for them.

Frankly I found the inaccuracy of both parts separately, the bizarre attempt to connect the two and the condescension toward President Obama to be completely unlike your previous outstanding analysis.

I have a long drive ahead today so won't be able to check back, but Seasons Greetings.

[Tom Rinaldo]

124. You are crossing OP's, which is fine, but it complicates responding.

When I get time, hopefully today but maybe not, I am planning another OP regarding my feelings about reducing Social Security benefits for budgetary reasons. But to be direct with you, no I do not regret my earlier OP. I do not feel it is morally right to even offer to reduce Social Security benefits in future years while simultaneously offering to pass NEW legislation giving tax cuts to those making over $250,000 a year. Usually I am very wordy and I suspect often that keeps some from actually reading my OP's when they click on them.

I am outraged by that concept grantcart, and that time I chose to lead with my emotions for a change. But I was also willing to sit by my computer and engage in a thorough discussion for hours about what lay behind my anger, and why it boiled down to that for me in this case. I don't apologize for the anger I felt, but I chose to move on from there with this OP today rather than keep adding to the latter. I passed on several easy opportunities to kick it again today, but like with most things, I think it better for discussion to move forward rather than fixate on any prior moment, especially one laden with emotion - including righteous anger.

To say that there is no evidence that Obama has caved on tax cuts on the rich or stands ready to raid Social Security is completely inaccurate. Perhaps you are mistaking "evidence" for "proof". Not all evidence ends up supporting a final verdict, but it still is evidence by any definition of that word, and evidence supporting one position or another is just that, no more no less. It is not meaningless to consider or premature to do so. The evidence does exist, the jury is still out on the final verdict.

As to the Chained CPI, I think Ezra Klein already went over this ground in a piece that last time I looked was featured on the DU Home Page. Whatever it may or may not be, the reason why it is being discussed so much by politicians today is clear and simple. By applying the Chained CPI to calculating Social Security benefits in future years the Federal Government can give less money out to those recipreants in the future than they now are legally obligated to. The result is hundreds of Billions of dollars in "savings" obtained by giving less money to seniors than they otherwise could have counted on, and currently are counting on. That is what this is all about grantcart. If there is a gimmick in this it is the "5% income offset" becasue it seems to make everyone whole in the long term, until you realize that most of those people will be in their graves before they see a cent of it.

I'm sorry grantcart, I did not mean to minimize the gravitas of Mr. Greenfield as an expert, I simply was typing fast and didn't want to take the time to go back and copy his name to enter, "guest" was a simple placeholder. But I don't care if he is God, I listened carefully to what he said and no where does he in any way contradict that Seniors will receive less money in the future under Chained CPI than they would under the current system. He simply makes a very qualified case that what they will receive is a more accurate reflection of true cost of living increases than the current system uses. They still would get less.

Once upon a time the wealthy in this country paid a top tax rate well over 50% also, and then that was changed - to their benefit. Congress passed new legislation and a President or two or three signed off and now the new tax rates are considered fair and proper, and carved in Stone to hear Republicans say it Even after Obama overwhelmingly won two Presidential cycles campaigning against the Bush tax cuts for the rich, no one expecting all of them to go back to even Bill Clinton levels now.

There is a myth in this nation that the Social Security trust fund is distinct from the budget. Sure legally it is, but that still is a myth. The budget has always borrowed from it Fuck ALL of the technicalities. Many Seniors don't get enough to live on now, and under a Chained CPI they will get less. That is the bottom line that matters.

[cliffordu]

125. Yer killin' me...

[DJ13]

133. Thats bad policy

"A number of people, even on the left, seem to indicate that economists at the peer review level have concluded (without apparent dissent) that the new formula is a more accurate predictor of inflation and that seems to be backed up with studies."


What that says is that people arent to be allowed to scrimp on spending (the downward exchange the 'chained' CPI is about) on their own in order to try and improve their lives. Now the government believes they have the right to force you to scrimp, with no hope of using the offsetting savings to improve your life.

[plethoro]

78. The key words in that exchange was "I don't know...". So, we have a reporter and another

man--both extremely rich--discussing the accuracy of an inflation index that many on the left and the seniors themselves (and I work with hundreds of these people daily) saying that even the index used now is inadequate. Then we have a promise of a 5% kick to be made that will affect people sometime in the indefinite future, a time I'm not even sanguine will occur. What I think is that this is just a massage technique to make the supposed change be more palatable. I think Obama wants to cut Social Security and I also speculate that he will be discussing other more drastic changes to Social Security (like means-testing) early next year. Why didn't the President say that he was going after a change in the cpi index prior to election? I mean would this not still make him appear to really be thinking of the country by suggesting something that they ostensibly think goes against their wishes? Not everyone in the country looks at things logically like you appear to do. At the place I do volunteer work, which is an Alzheimer's facility, the residents of all four floors are now scared shitless of having their social security cut. Is this President throwing out the baby with the bathwater? And what is his real agenda.

[OldDem2012]

153. Nicely stated. Thank you. nt.

[woo me with science]

27. Of course you are right.

And even if they choose to withhold it this time, he's still working toward it. He has been advocating stealing Social Security for a long time:

Obama for the Hamiltonian Democrats in 2006: "This is not a bloodless process."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2026779

There is no way whatsoever that the American people "win" from this deal. The best possible outcome at this point is triggered austerity cuts across the board, and the game was set up that way by every corporatist who participated in the debt ceiling debacle last spring. Our best possible scenario is that we are being set up to be grateful when the least painful version of austerity is implemented.

Corporatists are masters at propaganda and manipulating the masses, and they play the long game.

[jillan]

28. You don't gamble with things you are not willing to lose. And Pelosi - shame on you.

I cannot believe how he bent us over so quickly after the election.

[Liberalynn]

34. +1

I hope that somehow though it can be taken back.

[woo me with science]

39. Best succinct summary I have seen.

No more of this garbage from Democrats, ever.

[leftstreet]

118. +1

[marew]

135. Absolutely correct!

[uponit7771]

31. ****LOFL**** People are wrong >>AGAIN<< and offer conjecture as facts...

...we're in KunderLund this morning

[HereSince1628]

56. Unnecessary as DU is all speculation...the Principle of Parsimony should rule

the simplest path to the same result is preferred.

[JoePhilly]

45. Meanwhile, John Boehner lays weeping in a pool of his own sick.

Holding the "opinion" that Obama "might" do something, is a little different that the endless stream of hair-on-fire OPs we've seen over the last 2-3 weeks.

OPs in which numerous individuals, with near Nate Silver like certainty, proclaim that Obama will at any second kill social security.

Many of the response posts provide a level of outrage that might be appropriate if the evil event had actually happened, even though it had in fact not happened.

This same "Obama is about to kill old people" frenzy has played itself out at least 5 or 6 times since Obama took office. Happens about every 4-6 months or so.

Here it comes!! Any second!!

And then ... nothing.

[bigtree]

47. you cling to that

. . . it's all you've got . . . and it's still unsupported, fact-free, opinionated bull.

[hfojvt]

51. Oh, I would say there IS another scalp

and it is - much larger tax cuts for the rich.

Obama's original offer was $400 billion in tax cuts for the top 1%
Obama then offered another $200 billion in tax cuts for those making over $250,000
Boehner then counter-proposed another $300 billion in tax cuts for those making over $400,000.

For some reason, the Heritage Foundation, the AEI, and others did not want to take that. Nor did many other Republicans.

They are under the impression, apparently, that they can get even more. This in spite of the fact that if we go over the cliff, they will get ZERO dollars in tax cuts.

Either those groups are unreasonable fanatics, or they think, and perhaps have a plan, to get more.

Word I got was if the market tanks, that will perhaps force a deal.

Well, the top 1% can easily MAKE the market tank. All they have to do is suddenly sell a mere 5% of their holdings.

And they can make money doing it too, because after the market tanks, they can buy their holdings back at reduced prices. Citibank, for example, closed yesterday at 40.17. It is already down $1.43, Suppose my uncle Dave own 50 million shares. Sell 10 million of them at 39, or an average of 38. And say the market tanks to where Citi ends the day at 33. Sell at 38, buy back at 33. And at the end of the day, he has just as much stock as he did at the beginning PLUS $50,000,000 in cash.

[Aviation Pro]

54. Once again...

...the President is underestimated by supposed members of his own party. Go ahead, keep him accountable, but first and foremost, the man in a statesman and marvelous strategic and tactical thinker.

Most of the whiners in this forum are single issue voters and see nothing beyond their own wing tips. Underestimate the President at your own peril.

[4 more years]

58. BS to this SS deal

Our president let me down with this offer, plain and simple. The repubs want to slowly get SS over to wall street. Obama does not get it. These people are not his friend . Treat them like an enemy to SS and the middle class. Study history for Gods sake.

[plethoro]

59. If what you say is true, and it may indeed be true, then the majority of

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

the people on this board, yea in the electorate-- miscalculated this President at both their peril and his. When a President and a Vice President and a Democratic Speaker make a promise that Social Security, the Number One Demcratic achievement in history WILL NOT be touched, then renege on that promise, it WILL result in a bloodbath for Democrats in 2014 and a loss without the blood in 2016--no matter what the Republicans do during the intervening time between now and the next contest. This is a defining moment for the Democratic Party. Two weeks before Christmas at a time when 20-30 per cent of the people think the world may be coming to an end, can't find work, are hearing the country is going over a cliff, the President blithely offers to cut Social Security affecting the least among us the most. Whether it was honest bagaining, a chess move, a checkers move, an earnest wish, whatever, it is one of the dumbest moves I have ever seen since 1960. Had we lost the recent election by 20 points, I'd understand a little more, but we won, did we not? The hidden text here is What is Really this President's agenda with respect to what is badly referred to as entitlements?

[WinkyDink]

145. "Renege" is the spelling.

[plethoro]

150. I changed it. I thought renege was French...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=renig

[Romulox]

61. We're still waiting for a "check" in the President's game of inter-dimensional chess...

[grantcart]

62. So Tom are you also against the 5% offset?

Funny I don't see you factoring that in.

Could it be that you are reacting to only have an equation?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/#50254663

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. I responded above grantcart

It just took a while because there were a lot of other posts to reply to and because I took yours seriously. But I might add that I think ProSense captureed the problem with the "5% offset" best with this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022034756

[CRH]

64. Yes he is open to it, and it is a sellout, ...

because social security is self funded, and its only relation to the debt is the IOU's the government has accrued by pilfering the fund. How that gets twisted into being a burden on future government spending is only a ruse to capture the capital in the system.

[bhikkhu]

66. And I'm ok with that, because it is very easy to implement without harm

the actual proposal he made would have, essentially, means tested COLA adjustments. So that those who rely on Social Security as a primary income would be impacted not at all, while those having other incomes (pensions or investment income on top of SS) would see a slight reduction in benefit increases.

Means testing, while essentially progressive, isn't a perfect idea when applied to Social Security; but under these circumstances, and as proposed, the application is (I think) fairly brilliant.

[merrily]

80. Means testing is not at all a liberal view when it comes to Social Security.

Means testing is step 1 toward making Social Security a welfare program. And you know what happens to welfare programs.

So, it all depends on how you define "progressive."

[duffyduff]

84. "Means testing" IS welfare

You have to have a certain income level to receive the benefits. It is not something that is universal or an entitlement. That is what "means testing" is.

Food stamps, Medicaid, and Section 8 are all examples of "means tested" programs. Social Security and Medicare are NOT.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

116. x2

Welcome to DU.

[bhikkhu]

91. In this case, it would use an already progressive tax policy to keep income the same

for those who depend on it.

Which is why I consider it a brilliant solution. The effect is to means test benefit increases, but the tool to do that is our tax codes - which are already designed to be used in that way.

The only way to really oppose ideologically it is if you are in favor of a flat tax!

[Bluenorthwest]

119. Aside from the rest of it, your method would be unjust to those of us the tax code already treats

unfairly. I oppose the fact that your straight community treats my family as strangers to one another under the tax code. Your community insist that their families get one deal, ours get the shaft.
Any proposal to use the tax code to exact more money from elderly people would just expand and restate the vicious bigotry that code already serves to so many of us.
So if you want to screw more people by means testing, you'd best be ready for a fight of epic proportions because you are already screwing us out of plenty of money.

[99Forever]

69. K&R

[merrily]

81. Third Way recommended Chained CPI in 2011, if not before.

And Obama is a New Democrat.

I don't think he is simply open to it. I think he wants it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

94. If you know, did Third Way recommend more than just a chained CPI?

Someone posted earlier that Third Way SS cuts in the 20% range. But I've not been able to find that.

If so, that may predict Obama's future actions.

[madfloridian]

127. Here is their complete plan from 2011.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022021626

Yesterday, the organization Third Way released a plan outlining several Social Security reform proposals meant to ensure the program's solvency over the next 75 years. The plan, called Saving Social Security, makes several fundamental changes to the program and cuts $2 in benefits for every $1 it increases taxes. The authors of the plan describe it as "savings-led" and say that by approaching Social Security reform in a progressive way, it's possible to come up with "a solvency plan that would make Franklin Roosevelt proud". The major points of the plan are summarized in the tables below:


Proposal Savings Through 2040 Portion of 75 year Budget Gap Closed

make benefits formula more progressive neutral no effect

index retirement age to longevity, reaching 70 by 2077 $1 trillion >one-third

cut payroll taxes in half for older workers unspecified modest cost

switch to chained CPI for COLAs $2 trillion ~one-third

increase payroll tax for high-income workers (with or without a FICA "donut hole" payment)

$1.2 trillion ~one-third

fully tax benefits for high-income seniors $500 billion modest improvement

means test benefits

immigration reforms (including surcharges o

[AnotherMcIntosh]

129. Thank you.

[heaven05]

82. still

whining and sharpening your knives all you Brutuses? You want him to fail so you can be right. How really, really pitiful. Trying to appear reasonable now in this post after all the "caving" bull.... spewing from all the Quislings on this site. I STILL trust our President no matter what rationale you Quislings come up with to make yourselves feel better in your hope of PBO's failure and betrayal of our trust.

[stupidicus]

83. yep, so obvious even a caveman could figure it out

or should.

That he's just been playing games, etc, is just the last bastion for those struggling to come to terms with the brutal reality of it.

It's no doubt particularly painful and difficult for those who spent so much time and text ridiculing and worse, their fellow DUers for daring express concerns about it pre-election.

As one of those "rightwingers, concern trolls" etc, etc, etc, I think they should all line up and apologize to the board for all the needless discord, animus, etc, they promoted and perpetuated in the name of their blind faith and fealty.

WHether they actually get the chained CPI or any other sacrificial lamb of that kind is irrelevant in terms of BHO's intent, kinda like the common criminal can be charged with the clear intent to commit an unsussessfully carried out crime.

[Autumn]

87. A well thought out post.

Thank you.

[fascisthunter]

90. Why anyone would just "believe" in a politician is nuts

being alarmed at what he was willing to offer, should ALARM folks. Not make people say, "great move... he's a genius. See, he really wasn't going to to what he said, it was all politics." really, really disappointing, because the folks doing it, are much wiser than that.

[judesedit]

102. Can Obama raise social security payments in 2014 if we can take over the House which would negate

CPI? Just wondering what's possible if we pressure the White House & the Congress

[judesedit]

104. In addition I'd like to say I like the CPI idea where nursing homes are concerned. They take every

penny they can from elderly people needing their services. After working all of their lives, the patients have to sign over their social security checks, give them their homes, their cars, their savings, if any, and anything of value. It's utterly disgusting. So if there's a chance these establishments will get less, I like it. Now, if the person lives on his/her own, that's a totally different story and they should be exempt from the process. They are struggling as it is.

[buzzroller]

108. Robert Greenstein

He has been a defender of the needy for many years and has been involved with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for many years ( http://www.cbpp.org/)
He was not advocating any reduction in social security and said he would prefer a revenue only solution to long term social security solvency. He was just giving his answer on the effects of the proposal as he understood it.

I used the organization for information in my former career and they were objective in my opinion.

The OP is correct that the President is open to the chained CPI as part of a deal. Greenstein's comments help explain why.

[Tom Rinaldo]

138. He comes across as fair to me, simply explaining how and why things turn out as they do

under different scenarios. That is valuable information. Policy making begins with, but doesn'ty end, with accurate data. Thanks for your insigt.

[madfloridian]

109. I believe that also, Tom Rinaldo. Recommended.

I think we will end up with it, just like we are going to end up with the policy of privatizing the public schools. They can put lipstick on these policies, but they are still devastating. I don't think we can stop them.

It the good old Third Way policy coming into is own now.

Chained CPI is the bright idea of Third Way, the Dem "policy shop".

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. Thanks Mad, it's been good reading you here lately...

One thing though is that Liberals are out of the closet again finally, the backlash to centrist moves is faster, stronger and more certain. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over time.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

117. everyone else's opinion is conjecture

he offered it because he is open to it. this three dimension chess is a BS argument.

[ecstatic]

120. There's opinion, and then there's reality

Reality: There haven't been any social security cuts.

[MannyGoldstein]

126. Madness!

Either the President:

1. is playing 12-dimensional chess, or
2. he is forced to do whatever he did - he had no choice

One of these holds true for ANY occasion. In fact, usually 1. then 2. at every occasion.

[limpyhobbler]

128. Very well said.

He offered the same thing last year in 2011.

Some people twist themselves in knots making excuses for Obama. Not sure why.

Now that the a Democratic President has offered to cut Social Security, he made it acceptable.

Just the same as when he supported the "indefinite detention" provisions in the NDAA, or privatizing schools. It goes from being something that one party supports to something that both parties support.

[ProSense]

130. Here's an example of how dead chained CPI is, and why it should be.

Here's an example of how dead chained CPI is, and why it should be.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022048462

[randome]

131. You're right in that this is the more likely interpretation.

I don't think it's correct but I can't fault you or anyone else for thinking it because I don't have anything but my own hunch to fall back on.

[closeupready]

132. K&R

[SomethingFishy]

137. So you are judging Obama on what he says

not what he is thinking.

Unlike some on DU who apparently have some "Being John Malkovitch" type access to Obama's brain.

I guess it's a serious problem for me if I want to remain on DU. I must discover the way into Obama's brain. Apparently going on what Obama says and does isn't enough, I have to know and understand that what he says and does isn't really what he means or wants to do..

[jsr]

148. When someone offers to have sex with you, it means they WANT to have sex with you.

'Nuf said.

[Blue_Roses]

159. I have to disagree and I'm

sure some *cough* "professionals" would too.

Just because I say it, doesn't mean it's true. It's called: Placating.

[Evergreen Emerald]

154. Is he simply a better liar than Romney? Same policy--better lies?

He said SS was off limits. We believed him. Romney said SS was off limits (one of the many things he said about SS). We did not believe him.

Is Obama just a better liar than Romney? Is that why he won?

I am sickened by the fact that he allowed SS to be brought to the table. It has nothing to do with the "fiscal cliff" issues.

To give on SS when he won the election on the opposite...makes him simply a better liar.

[DryHump]

163. I hold no illusions...

...voted again for Obama knowing full well he is a crappy negotiator. I cannot be angry - I worked for him and voted for him twice. My job now is to work hard to keep him true to his promises and as close to progressive mores as possible.