President Obama's use of Social Security isn't 3D chess, poker or rope-a-dope

[WonderGrunion]

It's this:

I know many are upset about President Obama even using Social Security in this manner, but if your goal is to watch the GOP continuously falling on their backs, you need to keep setting up the target you know they will always kick at.

The stupid GOP will always kick at the Social Security football and President Obama will always pull that football away at the last minute. It's not getting kicked this time. It's never getting kicked.

[Marr]

1. He didn't pull it away-- the GOP just couldn't get their shit together to kick it.

This is not the first time he's put the GOP's dream item out on the table and invited them to take it. The only thing that's prevented it has been the batshit insanity of the current GOP, and their Teabagger wing's refusal to take "yes" for an answer.

Obama is doing his damndest to sell your ass out here, and your response is to call him a brilliant salesman.

[WonderGrunion]

3. Tell me more about how President Obama is upsetting you

[Cha]

6. ..

[JoePhilly]

33. lol!!

[OldDem2012]

36. Bingo! LOL!! nt.

[Marr]

59. That's your best response? Really?

This is about the level of thought I've come to expect from people who hold your position. They start with a bit of spin, almost always illogical and unsupported by evidence, and they just disappear in a puff of snark when anyone disagrees.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. That's because

there's no talking to a closed mind. It's clear you're one of President Obama's most ardent detractors, so the best thing to do is post a snark and move on.

[WonderGrunion]

94. I've responded to a lot of these responses

Pardon me for having alife and not being able to stalk your responses to me all day. Read all my responses in the thread. I've shown my evidence and proudly stand by it. You're the one that has a lack of facts on your side..

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

29. or

he is using the motivations of the GOP against them. Your view is not the only view.

[forestpath]

31. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. Well said.

While there are those who are willing to call him a brilliant salesman, while not closing the sale, he hasn't given up on trying to make it. Sooner or later, he'll do it. All he needs is a little more Republican cooperation.

[coalition_unwilling]

68. Ironic, considering that GOP are a bunch of shit-kickers (cue rim shot :) - n/t

[BainsBane]

2. I don't think so

If he actually offered it, it's still on the table. I'm quite annoyed about repealing the payroll tax break too. That is more likely than anything else to have a recessionary effect because it hits hardest the lower incomes who spent most if not all of their income. It also ticks me off that Republicans rail against tax increases but are so anxious to increase taxes on lower and middle income Americans, and NO ONE that I have seen is calling them on it.

[freedom fighter jh]

7. I'm not sure it's still on the table.

When the deal you offered gets rejected, you are no longer obligated to do everything you offered as part of it.

John Boehner rejected Obama's deal. After that they start again from scratch.

[WonderGrunion]

13. It was never on the table. Not really.

Anyone that has followed this President knew that from the beginning.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. You say, "When the deal you offered gets rejected, you are no longer obligated to do everything you

you offered ..."

Can you please tell Obama that?

Can you please tell Obama that he doesn't have to persist in trying to get the Republicans to agree to cut SS.

[hfojvt]

46. the accursed payroll tax cut should die

and the sooner the better.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

[customerserviceguy]

83. Don't you see how the payroll tax holiday

undermined support for Social Security? It was a way to say to younger people, "Hey, it's not that important for you to keep financing this system, here's a third of your tax money back, go blow it on something. Or, better yet, tuck it into your IRA or your company's 401K, because you're gonna need it."

That's exactly what I did with mine.

[BainsBane]

84. No, I don't

Most people aren't even aware of it, and how much people pay doesn't effect whether they think they need it. It's an economic stimulus measure designed to put extra money in the hands of those who need it the most. They in turn spend it and stimulate economic growth. Over time that should increase revenues.

[customerserviceguy]

88. Sorry if that sounds like a standard GOP line to me

They're the ones who insist that tax cuts are the essential ingredient of a healthy economy.

Further, those at or above the cap (those who need it the least) got the biggest cut. It was far more harmful to progressivity than the Making Work Pay credit that the holiday replaced.

You think that undermining the importance of paying for things makes people respect those things more or less? I know that the youngest workers already think that Social Security will go belly up way before they make it there, this "holiday" told them that we don't really respect the System, either. The fact that the tax cuts were specifically targeted out of FICA and not Federal income tax ties it all up.

[BainsBane]

91. OMG

NOOOOO. It is economic stimulus for the lowest incomes, which is the opposite of supply side economics. It provides relief for a good chunk of the nation, about 25%, who work but don't earn enough to pay income tax. It is demand side economics in that it puts money in the hands of the lower and middle incomes which purchase goods and stimulate demand. It is absolutely the opposite of GOP trickle down.

I think there should be NO cap on SS and Medicare. I don't see why the tax should be completely regressive and therefore penalize the poorest Americans the most.
The payroll tax was entirely Obama's plan. The GOP have always hated it.

The cap is at $104,000. Upper incomes pay virtually nothing in Social Security.
SS is a flat tax, the most regressive form of taxation.

[customerserviceguy]

93. Well, here's some math

A worker working 40 hours a week at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2012 mads $15,080.00. Two percent of his/her wages is only $301.60.

Someone making at or above the cap ($110,100.00 for 2012, not the number you state) saves two percent of that, or $2,202.00 in 2012. Sound progressive to you? The Making Work Pay credit was $400 for a single worker, and phased out completely for a worker making over $95K. That's my idea of economic stimulus for ordinary working people.

Besides, the MWP credit was not specifically targeted as some sort of forgiveness on the FICA tax obligation. That's why I feel it was inherently harmful, because it undermined the importance of fully funding the Social Security System. Further, the money transferred over from the general fund as an accounting gimmick actually made Social Security part of the Federal deficit for the first time ever. That's really harmful to its future.

I hear "remove the cap" all the time here. How do you propose we deal with an "infinite" rise in the maximum monthly benefit? The two are tied together. One of my solutions is to keep a cap on the worker's wages (thus keeping the maximum monthly benefit to reasonable levels) and remove the employer cap completely. That might be a better idea.

[BainsBane]

95. you make good points

What I objected to so strongly was the assertion that I was echoing right-wing talking points, which was far from the case.

The payroll tax holiday was always meant to be temporary. The question is whether the economy is strong enough to deal with the decline in demand that will result from having less money.

If someone's income is at minimum wage level, they don't earn enough for basic necessities. $300 is a significant amount of money to someone earning that little. Clearly the cut is not progressive when the tax is itself flat and entirely regressive.

I think it MAY be time to consider means testing for SS. The principal argument against that is that it undermines support for the program if everyone isn't invested. But raising the cap should be coupled with a limit on benefits. I wouldn't object to removing the employers cap, but I can't see that actually getting through congress. Nor would removing the cap on wages. Raising caps seem more doable. I also think of all the people like Romney would live off capital gains entirely. Do they pay any FICA at all? If someone on Wall Street gets their salary declared as carried interest, do they pay FICA on the first $110k?

[customerserviceguy]

99. I apologize for any offense taken

I get accused of parroting right wing talking points all the time, by people who simply don't care to elaborate. I know what that feels like, and again, I'm sorry for any offense you felt.

I do think that the payroll tax holiday did buy into the Repuke "taxes are bad for the economy" meme, and were harmful from that aspect. If we cut tobacco and alcohol taxes, what message would that be sending to people?

Yes, $300 can be a necessary lifesaver for someone making minimum wage. But you can get that to them by a temporary revision to the EIC, or a special tax credit that is explicitly temporary, without sending the message that FICA and Medicare taxes are somehoe an unfair burden on working class people. I'm glad you see my point about progressivity, there are married couples where both spouses made at or above the cap for the last couple of years, they've taken home an extra $8K with this, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

Means testing for Social Security turns it into a welfare program, and establishes the principle that just by tweaking the income and asset levels, the government can take it away from you. I remember the good old days when unemployment compensation was 100% tax free, and when it got taxed for the first time (1978, I believe), it was just the "rich" people, $20K for a single person and $25K for a married couple, and not enough people felt sorry for folks who were living that high off the hog.

Then, that mean son of a bitch Bob Dole headed a Senate committee that lowered the AGI caps to $18K for a couple and only $12K for an individual, and that was during the middle of a recession! Of course, other than a temporary break with the 2009 stimulus package, UC has been taxed 100%. You see where I'm going with this.

You want to spread things out a bit, so that general tax revenue takes a load off of the Social Security System? How about transferring the disability program to the general budget? Right now, the needs of disabled Social Security recipients are financed only from a tax on people who work and people who pay people to work. Why isn't that burden shared by those who make other forms of income?

[BainsBane]

100. No problem

The difference in the tax cuts is how they are targeted: supply-side economics imagines tax cuts at the top will trickle down and demand side targets those who actually purchase goods--lower-and-middle income Americans. They are different models of what drives economic growth.

You've clearly thought about the SS issue a lot more than I have. I guess I've been imbued with right-wing discourse because although I'm 51 I've never imagined Social Security would offer me much. After having spent down my 401k over a long period of unemployment and since returning to a secure job, I concluded that I would probably work until I died.

I understand the argument about means testing making SS seem like a welfare program. I thought, however, it might be a better solution than chained CPI. But I haven't looked carefully into proposals. I would certainly hate to see senior benefits cut. I have known people on disability and my understanding is that there are two forms, one that is based on what you've paid into the fund that can be far more generous and another that is irrespective of work history and far more meager. I'm not sure if the latter is federal, state (MN) or a combination. I have no problem with having disability covered under welfare programs, from the general budget, and I see nothing wrong with a healthy welfare state. But the problem is what can get by the House of Representatives, which appears to be nothing right now. I hope that after his speaker vote, Boehner free the Republican conference to vote independently and gets over this idea that they need a GOP majority to bring legislation to the floor. The Tea Party will never agree to participate in governing the country and their is no way forward waiting for them to approve legislation. I hope Boehner figures that out. One Republican congressman commented on his way out of the plan B vote that they'd been "dealing with these people for two years . . . it's always the same."
I'm hopeful the Tea Party will either die or split off to free the GOP to get back to participating in governance. Until then, it's hard to imagine any reasonable budget reform.

[customerserviceguy]

102. Eventually, we'll have to think about what to do about securing Social Security's finances.

There are two ways to deal with outflows, either find a way to cut back on future benefits growth for all, or find categories of people to cut out of receiving benefits. The latter is what they did in the 1983 reforms, by cutting out college students who had a deceased parent, and partially by making Social Security benefits potentially taxable income for the first time. This would be the same effect of a means test, when the much fuller taxation of Social Security benefits since that 1983 reform already is effectively that type of test.

I'm not in favor of using chained CPI as a bargaining chip in a fiscal cliff deal, but I do see it as part of a comprehensive reform of the type that the 1983 law was. It hit everybody just a little bit, delaying COLAs for half a year, added Federal employees, kept states from opting out, changed earnings tests for the already retired, and most importantly, raised FICA taxes and wage caps. We're going to need to do something like that very soon, the wave of baby boom retirements guarantees it.

I keep hearing people harp on the couple of trillion dollars worth of accounting gimmicks known as the Trust Fund, however, in 2009, the Social Security Administration released a report showing the unfunded obligations (they were careful to avoid using the word 'liabilities') of Social Security as $15.1 trillion. Of course, that was just as the Great Recession was starting, I'd guess their projections were using pre-recession figures and assumptions. In any case, with just a few years of the type of inflation we saw in the 60's and the 70's, that couple of trillion will disappear completely. And the only ways to pay it off are to have Federal budget surpluses, swap out Trust Fund non-negotiable securities with regular T-bills and/or notes, or inflate the currency.

We should never, ever again get into a situation where if we do have an excess inflow of FICA taxes over benefits paid, that the money becomes Congress' slush fund for financing things that it doesn't have the ability to address by either tax increases, or just doing without those things.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Nice. So you guarantee that changed-CPI is 100% off the table! Nice!

And it is so cool using the most vulnerable of us to SCORE!!!!!!

Cruel, mean and undemocratic.

[WonderGrunion]

10. Chained CPI was never on the table

Just like Charlie Brown is never going to kick that football.

You're really not going to like the next four years if you keep focusing on the football.

[Scootaloo]

14. Nothing like coming to a political discussion forum...

And finding so few people who know how politics works.

I've given up trying to explain to people how political baiting works or why it does. They want to hate and revile Obama, and will continue to do so all the way to 2017, no matter what. So, fuck 'em.

[JoePhilly]

37. Notice how they want you to prove Unicorns don't exist.

The only way to prove Obama won't allow such cuts is to reach the end of his 2nd term with no cuts.

Lacking that, nothing that he actually does will provide sufficient proof to refute the FACT (at least its a fact to them), that Obama has a secret evil plan to kill Social Security.

They came to that conclusion shortly after he was elected. And no matter how many times they light their hair on fire predicting that the cuts are absolutely positively about to happen, and then that prediction does not come true, they will remain just as outraged as if he had made the predicted cuts.

I keep daring them to start a Progressive Prez 2016 group on DU where they can put forward the uber-progressive candidate they demand. So far, no takers.

[dionysus]

48. and when 2016 arrives and no cuts... he still wanted them.. but they stopped him! by posting on DU.

[treestar]

79. They held his feet to the fire!

[Scootaloo]

58. Wait... what? What was that about unicorns?

All I'm seeing is a bunch of Democrats who are prepared to trust absolutely anyone except the president. It makes me wonder when the party's base regressed back to 1952

[Marr]

60. Upside-down bullshit.

I'm seeing people who insist that putting Social Security cuts on the table is not actually putting Social Security cuts on the table, and then dismissing anyone who doesn't embrace their delusion as crazy or ignorant of multidimensional chess.

You want to talk about 'how politics works'? The very same truism that you're saying paralyzed the GOP (openly embracing Social Security cuts), obviously did not paralyze the White House. That is to say, you seem to think that the GOP would never endorse such a thing because it would be so damaging in the court of public opinion. Well, why doesn't that works both ways? The White House put it out there, apparently willing to weather the backlash. And your response THERE is that there shouldn't be one.

This argument makes no sense. It's just a self-comforting rationalization.

[Scootaloo]

65. No, I just think you're getting jerked around by Republicans

Reactionaries of a feather flock together, after all.

What paralyzed the GOP is a complete and utter unwillingness to accept anything put forward by the president - sort of like what the problem of many DU'ers is - resulting in an ability to make them look like self-destructive dumbfucks by offering them everything they want.. .and then laughing as they spastically refuse and rant and rail against their own ideas. This undermines what support they have and makes them even more fractious.

If there were any chance that the Republicans would snap at the offer and agree to it, it would not have been made.

All you and the rest of these "critics" have to offer to defend your own position is that the president is just irrationally evil, some shifty fucker out to screw you over because, well, you don't know why but it MUST BE TRUE!

[Marr]

66. Then why make an offer at all?

Obama doesn't have a crystal ball. He is not omniscient. There is no way that he could be absolutely, 100% assured that they would not accept his 'more than halfway' offer. And what is gained by making an offer as you describe? He could make the opposition look obstinate? So what?

Even if your construct were true, at best we come away from the situation with a new precedent of offering Social Security cuts for deficit reduction (?) and get nothing of any value in return.

I think it's much simpler than all of that. I think "Social Security cuts" means "Social Security cuts". I think putting an item on the negotiating table means you're willing to negotiate for it. I think that's obvious.

[Scootaloo]

69. You don't need a crystal ball

Gosh, who could predict that wild-eyed reactionaries are going to act like wild-eyed reactionaries, especially after all those other times they acted like wild-eyed reactionaries?

Why make an offer? Because the opposition's main argument is "hurr durr da president in't givin' us no dang offer, narf!" in an attempt to blame the impasse on the Democrats. So you make an offer, an offer that is exactly what the opposition has asked for, and then they - predictably and publicly - refuse it. On no basis other than not wanting to work with the Democrats.

it shows the public how damaging these cretins are to the nation; they're willing to throw us all over a cliff in their desperation to blame another political party for hitting the bottom. When that happens though - and it's looking more and more like no deal will be reached by the end of the year - there will be little to no public support for the Republicans, aside from the usual backwash contingent.

After that, I would guess - and yes, this is a guess - that the president puts something forward and says "this is what we're doing. You turkeys can sit and spin" and will have strong public support. if nothing else, the intransigence of the Republicans primes the charge for 2014... Remember, politics is a long-term prospect, and not the week-by-week episodic drama that the 24-hour news cycle tells you.

You are relying on the idea that the president is stupid and evil. I could speculate on where that comes from... but I'd rather not see someone strangle themselves with their own pearls.

[Marr]

72. Don't put words in my mouth, thank you.

I said nothing about stupidity or evil, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your "speculations" to yourself.

You insist that Obama knew beyond all doubt that Republicans could not call his bluff. So he could've offered the beating heart of your child in that instant, and you would've slept well.

I think that's ridiculous. No one is omniscient. You don't make an offer you're not prepared to see accepted. And I maintain that the PR victory you describe would, even if true, be an unbelievably small gain for such a risk. It does not make sense.

[Scootaloo]

78. Who said anything about omniscience?

The Republicans are terribly predictable, and yes, I WILL say that the president knew, without a doubt, that they would refuse the offer... because they're refused absolutely every other offer in the past, no matter what. That is their stated policy during his administration, it's what they're guaranteed to do. If you can't comprehend this, well, I'm sorry, but you should pay more attention to the world around you perhaps.

As for evil and stupidity, I have not seen a single person who can offer any reason for why - in their eyes - the president is so gung-ho, shit-his-pants desperate to supposedly kill social security. Why is it that this guy is so eager to do this, you think? What's his reason, what's his logic? I haven't seen anything other than a supposition that he is too incompetent to know better and too dastardly to care. Stupid and evil.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. Well said.

One thing that I've noticed about the Obama-can-do-no-wrong crowd is that many of them misstate what others have said and even invent fictional positions.

[OldDem2012]

41. I sometimes wonder if some of the Obama-haters are actually right-wingers who delight in....

....stirring the DU pot. I just wonder how they've managed to survive on this board as long as their post-count indicates.

But, if they're NOT righties, what the heck is fueling their obvious hatred of the President? Or do they really just hate anyone living in the White House, regardless of party affiliation?

[CheapShotArtist]

98. Could be, but I would imagine that

if they were undercover wingnuts, they would've given up on it weeks ago since Obama was re-elected. They might just be hardcore liberals who have become impatient with the pace of progress and egalitarianism. Who knows...

[sabrina 1]

51. So Nancy Pelosi and Hoyer and the Congressional Caucus were imaging things?

Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, the AFLCIO, the Progressive Coalition and Senior Organizations were ALL fooled? They just thought they saw it there?

I have been calling members of Congress and they all think it is there also.

Where did you get this information because if you are correct, all the actions being taken right now by all the huge Organizations fighting to get it off the table, could just relax.

Thank you for letting me know so I can stop donating and calling and can let all these Organizations, Nancy Pelosi, Hoyer and the Progressive Caucus that they were all imagining things.

I look forward to your sourced information so I begin making calls today.

This would save all of us a lot of time.

Thanks in advance.

[woo me with science]

54. It can't be off the table permanently, because

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:39 PM - Edit history (4)

then they would not be able to crow and proclaim victory for taking it off the table again.

And again.

We were exhorted to praise the party and be assured of their representation last spring, after *Obama*, not the Republicans, put SS and Medicare cuts on the table, and they failed to pass.

Now they will seek adulation again for "saving" us, when they are the ones who put SS on the table, again.

The corporate Democratic Party has devised a breathtakingly cynical stunt. Our party used to win praise and loyalty by standing up for democratic principles and passing legislation to increase fairness and equality.

The neoDemocrats claim victory by hanging an axe over our heads, and then pulling it away again. And what are we supposed to overlook just behind that cynical stunt? The fact that the hostage-taking of SS was USED to push through the implementation of destructive austerity against the wishes of the American people.

Nonsense, utter bullshit and nonsense that no one was harmed. This entire scam was another bipartisan step in the one percent game of looting the rest of us. And it worked.

[freedom fighter jh]

8. What happens if he "sets up the target" and they accept his deal?

Then he's obligated for everything he offered. If he does not do what he offered, then he loses credibility as a good-faith negotiator and negotiations fail.

And if they don't accept his deal then there is no solution.

I can't see how he can put social security benefit cuts on the table and then come to an agreement that doesn't include social security benefit cuts. Can you explain?

[WonderGrunion]

12. Because Simpson Bowles never resulted in Social Security cuts

The debt ceiling fiasco never resulted in Social Security cuts.

The 2010 lame duck "Cave-athon" never resulted in Social Security cuts.

Every time that the reactionary left insists that we've been screwed by President Obama on the social safety net, it never actually happens.

There is an obvious pattern that has emerged here over the last 4 years. That is why I know (not believe, know) that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will never be gutted by this President.

[JoePhilly]

38. YUP ... this is about the 6th or 7th hair-on-fire session on this exact topic.

Every 4 to 6 months here on DU ...



And then ....

[hfojvt]

52. okay, just back up a second

"Simpson Bowles never resulted in social security cuts."

That's kinda beside the point. The question is, did Simpson-Bowkes PROPOSE social security cuts?

I would say that it did, although I am not against all of those cuts myself. I think its proposal to change the bend points is not bad.

But the other thing is, in spite of its proposals to cut social security benefits, many Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, have embraced and applauded and endorsed Simpson-Bowles.

"The 2010 lame duck "Cave-athon" never resulted in Social Security cuts."

That looks like a very nice straw man. Did anybody claim that the Cave-athon would result in Social Security cuts?

I know I never did. I blew my stack about the cave-athon because it involved massive tax cuts for the rich.

I dislike predictions, so let me say that my fear is that this deal will (again) result in massive tax cuts for the rich. In fact, Obama continues to embrace and applaud the idea of tax cuts for the rich.

Something I have dedicated a lot of time to fighting, and deluding myself, apparently, that the Democratic Party was on my side in this fight.

[customerserviceguy]

86. It seems that your logic boils down to

because it's never happened, it cannot happen. I guess we can use the same thinking about an asteroid wiping out humanity, or even global warming causing the oceans to rise. That's the way the reich wing dismisses climate change.

There are a number of reforms to Social Security that ARE coming, and the chained CPI is just the easiest of them to accomplish politically. That's why it fell out of the President's mouth. I favor keeping it under wraps until the whole deal can be done at once, when we finally come to grips with the fact that it's going broke and needs fixing.

[Resonance_Chamber]

9. Sometimes I really wish the cheerleaders and fanboys would

wake the f up and see what is really happening.

Take off your rose colored glasses,you will see things much clearer.

[WonderGrunion]

11. Here is what I see clearly

For the last 4 years, I've been told by the haters on the left that President Obama is going to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and told that there is proof from 'Very Serious Liberal Bloggers' (tm) that it was really really really going to happen this time. It didn't happen. It's not going to happen. It's never going to happen.

Stop pretending the football is ever going to get kicked.

[Resonance_Chamber]

15. I do not hate nor do I like Pres Obama

I do not personally know him except though his deeds and rhetoric and both are out of sync, he talks a good game but his actions are much different.

There is no excuse to put SS and Medicare on the table at all yet he keeps doing it time and time again.

While running for POTUS he made it clear he was againt the GOP health care plan and supported single payer yet he did not even try to fight for it, he gave it away right off the bat.

Did YOU get single payer, I did not?


But if you would rather cheerlead, go for it, it is your right to live a life of delusion.

[WonderGrunion]

16. President Obama made one speech supporting single payer while a state legislator

He never campaigned for single-payer health care in 2008.

[JoePhilly]

39. Those programs exist, the GOP hates them, therefore, they are always on the table.

To think otherwise is naive.

[Demo_Chris]

17. Respectfully, this OP is nonsense

We voted for Obama based upon his promises. We did not elect him to break those promises, nor did we elect him to suggest (as he did) that cuts to these programs are reasonable and necessary.

Say what you want about people like Limbaugh, Boehner, or even the scumbag LaPierre, they absolutely 100% defend the garbage they are elected / hired to defend. Every time, no exceptions. There is absolutely no chance, not even the slightest sliver of a chance, that come monday Limbaugh will come out in favor of jacking up tax rates on the rich. Limbaugh will never be in favor of taxing the rich, the NRA will never be in favor of banning guns...But Obama?

By monday Obama might very well offer to completely eliminate social security and use the cash to fund free hookers for billionaires and the strip mining of Yellowstone. It's Obama. The only thing either of us can be absolutely sure of when it comes to Obama is this: his word means bloody little to him.

So please, and I mean this respectfully, please stop with this hyper-dimentional chess nonsense. The reality is simple even if you prefer not to believe it. Obama lied to us again. Our job is not to pretend he didn't -- leave pretending to the GOP. Our job is to tell Obama and the members of Congress that they are going to be out of a job if they try it.

[WonderGrunion]

19. Obama didn't lie to us.

No cuts to Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid have happened. He never promised to not put out the football for the GOP to fail to kick once again.

[forestpath]

32. "his word means bloody little to him" - perfect description in 7 words.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. Have you ever played poker? Do you understand the concept of a 'bluff'? Did you know that

poker is one of Obama's favorite card games?

Having asked those questions, can't you see that Boner failed to call Obama's bluff and instead, like the putz and chump he is, folded his hand and left the table? Result: Obama and we collect the pot and Rs get "nothing."

For a hilarious and eye-opening blow-by-blow, check out this story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193770576333616.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[SomethingFishy]

92. So you consider it good politics to "bluff" with peoples lives?

Yeah poker is a great card game, especially when you are playing with other peoples money..



See this is why you can't get all Democrats behind your unwavering support for Obama. You make jokes and laugh about how hilarious it is that Obama put S.S. money on the table, and call them names and haters when they have the audacity to even question the "bluff". To some people, that's not really... funny.

[Demo_Chris]

96. Speaking of poker...

I was playing poker with some buddies. I was down a bit more than I could afford to lose, but I had a good hand. So I bet my buddy that he could have sex with my wife if he won. I knew it was a safe bet because his wife was there too.

Now, for some reason, my wife is all pissed off at me.

She keeps going on about honor and promises and what not. I guess some people just don't understand poker.

[MFrohike]

97. Oh shit son

You just nailed it.

[HereSince1628]

18. Compare the president to a mean spirited trickster...and then tell me how much

you love him.

Because after that comparison I need your reassurance.

[WonderGrunion]

20. I'm a mean spirited Democrat

I really love what President Obama does to the GOP every bit as much as i love when President Clinton would get that twinkle in his eye when he was about to put one over on the Repukes.

I enjoy the tears of my enemies.

[HereSince1628]

21. I'm glad can you see what you want to see.

[Resonance_Chamber]

23. Its the rose colored glasses

[tridim]

26. Reality is not rose colored glasses.

You're delusional, at best. Sorry.

[Fumesucker]

22. At best it's a game of chicken

Being the passenger in a car where the driver is playing chicken isn't a comfortable feeling, particularly when you know if the driver of the car doesn't swerve it won't make any difference to him, he'll walk away just fine while the passengers pay the price.

[Resonance_Chamber]

24. He has no skin in the game so to speak

He and his family are now set for life he can jack with SS all he wants and his kids and even grandkids will not be impacted by it at all.

If chaining the CPI is so good why don’t they chain Congressional and Executive branch Pay and Benefits first to let us know what a great deal it is?

[customerserviceguy]

90. Well said

And it backs up why I say that the tea party is going to hold Washington D. C. in a state of siege next year. They believe that their base can handle every aspect of the cliff way better than our side can.

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. And if Boehner had come up with the votes?

No way do we put Social Security or Medicare on the table. For any reason.

[djean111]

27. That's kind of a wingnut tricksy thing -

immediately equating hating that Obama put SS on the table with hating Obama.
And I didn't know that working to elect a Democrat to the presidency also required loving him immoderately and unconditionally.

I have seen NOTHING that says SS is off the table - it is, I believe, just carefully placed under the table until next year.
Also believe there was an outside chance that it would have been accepted (gleefully) - thus the spate of opposite spin.
There was an awful lot of well, Chained CPI is good for you (even though Carney said "less generous" than the current 1.071% bonanza.)
I read that if I didn't like Chained CPI, then I surely hated Obama, the unemployed, that food stamp people, veterans - all quite false and fairly cynical comparisons, as if any one of those groups just had to be hit painfully, whilst banks and corporations and the 1% and the military kept wading through our tax money.
Now we are back, of course, to oh he didn't really mean it (ask Pelosi?) and if you are upset you must hate him.

This isn't a cartoon football - this is about real people. And as far as I can tell, Obama may just nicely hand the football to the GOP, no need for all that unseemly fighting and kicking.
I will reserve judgement until the dust settled and all the deeds are done, but I feel quite free (check the TOS) to hate something Obama - or whoever is president - proposes.

[forestpath]

34. Well said. Anytime you hear Obama talking about cutting the deficit, like he did yesterday,

he means cutting SS. People who say it's not on the table are deliberately, and willfully, blind.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

28. Of all the things to be pissed about over the past 25 years of my life...

A math equation hasn't been one of them.

[COLGATE4]

30. None so blind as those who will not see... nt

[Orangepeel]

35. It's risking seniors' well being in the future in an attmpt to protect most people now

I think it is ridiculous to say that the President wants to cut benefits. I also think it is ridiculous to think he put chained CPI on the table without being willing to take it.

The sudden contraction of spending (including spending on programs that help people) if the sequester goes into effect will hurt the overall economy and plenty of lower and middle class people soon. Chained CPI is likely to hurt seniors 10 years from now.

From what I've read chained CPI will not be a more accurate measure of inflation and is very likely to result in lower payments in the future than would the current formula. So, it is a bad idea. If it is substantially less accurate and the payments would be substantially lower, it is a very, very bad idea. But the hypothesis that the president and other democrats would be proposing it because that's what they want is, in my opinion, silly and wrong.

The current Republican Party is impossible to work with in good faith but the president has been somewhat successful in dealing with them by getting what helps people in the short term while negotiating away pain that is scheduled for the future. The sequester itself is an example of that. I think the offer of chained CPI is another example.

It's more like kicking the can down the road than it is like kicking the football (and I'd say the president is most like Linus if he has to be a Peanuts character -- he isn't Lucy)

I don't like this approach, if indeed I am correct, because the risk is much too great that the pain producing measures won't get fixed in the next 10 years before they really start to hurt. But I'm not sure if there is a better one, because I do believe predictions that going off the cliff will, in the near term, seriously hurt the economy as a whole and lots of people still struggling to get back on their feet.

[tabasco]

40. SS cuts should be absolutely OFF THE TABLE

and we need a President who has the courage to STAND UP and say that. IT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. Utilize this opportunity to show the people that republicans are working against them.

Putting cuts "on the table" simply makes it more likely that they will be part of negotiations in the future.

[99Forever]

42. So your basic premise is...

... that using the only lifeline millions of our most vulnerable people DEPEND on to LIVE as some sort of tool in a game of political chicken, repeatedly, is a moral and ethical thing to do?

That about sum it up for you?

I don't agree. I think it's despicable and inhuman. But you fellas run around high-fiving and doing your little victory dance at your "great achievement."

[kentuck]

49. That is what it sounds like to me also...

Nothing to brag about, for sure.

[leftstreet]

50. +1

[Oilwellian]

62. Indeed

Threatening to cut the lifeline for our most vulnerable in society is likened to a cartoon. The twisted logic and high fives is an eye-opener.

[Autumn]

43. Obama is too smart and strong of a man to play games, even this one.

He truly believes in bipartisanship. That is his goal. No, he would not have pulled that football away at the last minute. He offered a chained CPI because it was something that might have been accepted if boner could have gotten his crew in line. Lucky for us boner failed.

[WonderGrunion]

44. As long as the debt ceiling was attached to chained cpi

It was never being accepted by the repukes. They wanted that debt ceiling fight more than oxygen.

[Autumn]

45. Of course. But they could have accepted it. Obama had to have been prepared for them to.

They want those tax breaks extended more. The debt ceiling fight is bullshit, history has shown that they are willing to raise the debt ceiling whenever they want to. I just do not believe that Obama is the type of a man to play games over something he truly believes in, bipartisanship.

[Marr]

67. Oh yes, I forgot-- he's omniscient.

The Great and Powerful Oz knew beyond all doubt that they would never say "yes" to his offer. He has traveled the paths of time like a god, and is infallible.

[democrattotheend]

47. I was starting to doubt, until I read the WSJ article this morning

It didn't mention chained CPI specifically but it made it clear how much the president refused to give in on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022054848

[AndyA]

53. What bugs me about Obama and SS

First of all, SS doesn't contribute to the deficit. We've all heard that over and over by now. So, why would he allow SS to even be a part of the deficit talks?

Also, the SS trust fund has been "borrowed" from to the tune of well over $2.5 Trillion. That money paid for wars, tax cuts, etc., so why is there no discussion about putting the money back into SS? That would make SS solvent for many, many years.

I think it's irresponsible to not address the real problem, and that is the fact the SS would be fine right now and for many years to come if Congress had left their hands off of the SS trust fund. Basically, they've stolen from the people who worked and paid into the fund, now they want to basically cut/reduce/whatever you want to call it benefits, which only hurts those who need it most.

Obama should have never allowed SS to be a negotiating factor. He promised he wouldn't during the campaign.

[duffyduff]

56. If Obama was bluffing, it was a dangerous way to bluff

What if the GOP decided to call his bluff? What then?

[coalition_unwilling]

73. Have you played much poker? Obama knew the GOP could not call his bluff (because

to do so would have meant raising taxes on their base). He's not someone I would ever care to find myself playing poker with, and I consider myself pretty fair at the game.

I actually think someone in the R leadership may have been feeding Obama intel on what Rs would and would not accept, someone (like Hunstman) concerned with trying to keep the Rs a sane party. But we'll never know for sure.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. I have not played all that much poker, but from what I understand gambling with Grandma's

Social Security check is frowned upon almost universally. I've also been told that when one does gamble with other people's money, those providing the stake are due a share of winnings as well as repayment if the stake is lost. Are these things accurate?

[coalition_unwilling]

89. Somehow the poker and bluffing metaphors are being misused and abused in this

discussion.

Let me see if I can spell it out a little more clearly (with apologies to real poker buffs out there):

Tbe pot in this case was the so-called 'grand bargain' to avert the so-called 'fiscal cliff' mandatory sequestrations and tax increases mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 but that would also raise the debt ceiling.

The chips Obama had to play with were 1) spending cuts and 2) tweaks to 'entitlement' programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The chips Republicans had to play with were 1) tax increases and 2) taking debt ceiling off the table.

Obama went all in with 1 and 2 in a bluff that Rs would not call his hand. True to form, R putz in chief Boner not only did not call Obama's hand, he folded. Result is Obama and we get the whole pot and Rs get 'nothing.' We got back our stake and then some. (Taxes on the rich are going back to pre-Bush levels and defense spending will be cut as will domestic programs but can be restored after Jan. 1. No change to Social Security or to any core safety net programs like Food Stamps.)

At no time did Obama gamble with "Grandma's Social Security check," rhetoric notwithstanding.

[pinto]

80. Soc Sec Trust Fund, FAQ's -

Trust Fund Data

Frequently Asked Questions about the Social Security Trust Funds

1.What are the Social Security Trust Funds?

2.How are the trust funds invested?

3.What interest rate do the trust funds' assets earn?

4.What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?

5.If all the income is invested, how do benefits get paid each month?

6.What were the amounts of securities bought and sold during recent years?

7.Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism?

8.Can the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent without making changes to the program?

9.Were the assets of the Social Security Trust Funds depleted in the past?

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. Why is hating SS cuts (and the offering of SS cuts) equated with hating Obama?

[TheKentuckian]

61. I don't even care why, Obama is a temporary steward and SS will be critical in our lives

for decades and generations when Obama is the subject of history books not direct impact.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A SINGLE MAN.

[Autumn]

63. Truth, right there

SOCIAL SECURITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A SINGLE MAN.

[woo me with science]

64. To make it about the team, not the policies,

and to play the loyalty card.

How to co-opt a party into Third Way, corporate loyalty
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1489598

[coalition_unwilling]

71. Your OP notwithstanding, I'd still hate to find myself in a game of poker with Obama. I'm

afraid he would clean my clock

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. IMO, the internationalists who carry the Democratic banner after being elected by us are going

to clean all our clocks.

Thankfully, at least for now, Bernie Sanders and a few others are still around. But Durbin and others with big "D's" after their names have changed from being representatives of the people to representatives of the rich and the super-rich.

[patrice]

76. Everyone should prepare to go into the streets for real to protect Social Security WHENEVER it is

going to be damaged.

[TDale313]

77. I'm just not sure...

Who's Lucy and who's Charlie Brown.

[Egalitarian Thug]

82. I'll believe it when they refuse to do anything this session and then make and back

budget proposals to actually help people in the next.

Until that happens, this is all just political Kabuki bullshit to distract the chronically stupid.

[DonCoquixote]

101. I get called an Obamabot a lot

But I have to disagree here:

You see, the danger in Obama doing this is NOT that Boner could have taken it, it is that the GOP will keep bleating "well you did it once!" Of course, if we did or did not do things based on the GOP ability to whine, we would get NOTHING done. Also, the danger will come in after 2016, where even a president Clinton will be tempted to make the grand deal and Wall Street puts in a bunch of "modertae GOP" that does nto telegraph their punches, making their actions obvious.

[JackRiddler]

103. Actually, it's more like this: