General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Think Obama Is Bluffing
by Michael Tomasky
Liberals are upset today because Obama's budget is going to include a call for chained CPI and some means-testing of Medicare. Krugman thinks he seeks the approval of the Serious People. Chait concurs. Ezra Klein tweeted earlier today that it appears that Obama is once again opening a negotiation at the other side's halfway point...But I tend to agree with Kevin Drum on this one. Drum writes that Obama doesn't really expect the GOP to budge on taxes and therefore doesn't expect a deal at all. And that Republicans, rather than make a deal, would prefer to continue to have the deficit as an issue to bang Obama with:
The truth is that, for the most part, the deficit isn't a real issue for Republicans. They don't want to raise taxes; they don't want to cut defense spending; they don't want to cut entitlement spending on seniors (the core of their base); and cutting future entitlements doesn't affect the deficit any time soon. The only thing left is cutting spending on the poor, and although Republicans think that's a fine idea, even they can't cut social welfare spending enough to have a serious impact on the deficit.
So it's mostly a charade. And it's a good one! One of the very best, in fact. Cutting the deficit polls well, it lends itself nicely to demagoguery, and it's an all-purpose excuse to oppose any spending proposals they don't like. So why on earth would you cut a deal to take it off the table? That would be crazy. And if they're forced to swallow a tax increase as well, that makes it even crazier. There's literally no benefit at all in this for Republicans.
So they won't do it. Obama's real hopesince I assume he's not an idiot and knows all this perfectly wellis that Republicans will indeed refuse to make a deal, and this will turn the public against them in the 2014 midterms. I suppose that's possible, depending on how well he plays his hand. It's certainly more possible than assuming that Republicans will voluntarily commit electoral suicide by agreeing to a deal.
This sounds right to me. The risk Obama runs here is that the GOP calls his bluff and does a 180 and says, "Okay, you want some tax increases? We'll go to $300 billion." Or some other smallish figure. Then he'll have to play ball.
But I think the risk of that is small. Can you picture the Republicans giving ground on taxes before 2014? I can't. They'll keep demagoguing the deficit and run on that. The risk for them is that the deficit really goes down and no one gives a crap about it anymore. It's expected to be $845 billion in October. It could be lower. And then what if it's just $500 billion the following October, the month before the election? It'll fade as an issue. Obama will be able to run around on the campaign trail saying he reduced the deficit nearly $1 trillion in two years in such an event. Not implausible.
All that said, people like Bernie Sanders should keep up the pressure in the meantime. But I see no incentive for the GOP to come to terms, and I think the Potus knows it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/05/i-think-obama-is-bluffing.html
Sen. Bernie Sanders Deeply Disappointed With Obamas Social Security Cuts, Vows To Block Them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022620870
spanone
(135,632 posts)they will never agree to more revenue.
still_one
(91,945 posts)thesquanderer
(11,953 posts)still_one
(91,945 posts)thesquanderer
(11,953 posts)so it has nothing to do with the comment I was responding to.
Regardless, if one thing is a bluff, it doesn't mean something else is, regardless of what term it was offered in.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)Apparently he didn't learn anything from 2010 -- or maybe he did.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Resulting in more votes for that party rather than less which is more likely?
Let me guess, your idea of a tough year is the one you only made 100 grand, you live near DC in a posh house and work with or for politicians, or you are a TV pundit that lives in a bubble where cutting SS is "courageous"
Which one is it? Or is it some other reason you under the delusion that proposing these cuts will resonate so well with the voting public?
paulk
(11,586 posts)is to discourage the base of your party?
thesquanderer
(11,953 posts)I'm not sure I agree, but that's the point that the "it's a bluff" people are trying to make. Read the OP. The idea is to offer something so conciliatory to the Republicans (i.e. demonstrating overwhelming evidence of Obama's willingness to compromise) that the Republicans' refusal to support it shows unequivocally that they are incapable of governing in good faith. It's not about winning the base (who are never going to vote Republican anyway), it's a matter of persuading enough non-base voters to capture extra seats in 2014.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)WTF!
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)It's been going on for years.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,694 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,149 posts)If his 'strategy' is to make offers that include something Republicans will never accept, and therefore he can insert stuff in it that he himself doesn't want, and his supporters don't want, then he's just wasting everyone's time, while pissing off some supporters. Forget '11 dimensional chess' - it would mean he's playing tic-tac-toe, with the moves that guarantee a draw.
Or it means he does himself think that the switch to chained CPI would be acceptable.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)Social Security Insurance has nothing to do with the deficit, but the Pentagon sure as fuck does and that beast is still gigantic.
randome
(34,845 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)CTyankee
(63,769 posts)has nothing to do with the deficit, but somehow he is playing a card I can't quite figure out...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Just ask the poster!
DearHeart
(692 posts)At least a half a dozen times already?? The man is not bluffing! If he was bluffing, do you think Bernie Sanders would be this upset??
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)and yet not once has the GOP taken the bait. They won't go near it.
Meanwhile, Bernie gets to scream about protecting SS, as will the other Dems, and the GOP will be stuck with nothing to say at all.
DearHeart
(692 posts)I would never put it past the republicans...all they'd have to do is point out that it was a DEM President who offered up SS. You don't think they would LOVE to do that?? What does Obama do if they did call his bluff?
I'm sorry, but to many people, not just seniors, count on SS and this should not be a game.
True dat!
-p
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)As it would force him to veto one of his own suggestions once it arrives on his desk.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Obama's budget is put forward.
Boehner says, "OK, I agree". (I could argue that the Tea Party nuts would go crazy and demand that he be replaced as speaker, which they would in fact do. But I don't need to even go there.)
What does Boehner have to do after saying "OK, I agree"??
The House GOP has to write, and pass, the actual legislation. That legislation has to include the details. (The current GOP House would never be able to do it, they disagree on too much, but again skip that. I could also point out that they are known as the "do-nothing" congress for a reason ... this situation demands they take action, and they are incapable of that for anything other than meaningless abortion bills or repeals of Obamacare. But skip that too.)
So let's say the House GOP CAN create a bill that is pretty close. That bill would pass the GOP house with almost no Dem votes.
And then it would go to the Senate, and die.
The secret weapon in this is that the GOP House has to actually write out all of the details for the legislation. The discussion then shifts to those details, any one of which scuttles the bill. The GOP does not want to debate the details of any of this. They do bumber stickers, not details. Did you see what Boehner said about Obama's proposal? He claimed Obama was "holding entitlement reform hostage". The verbal gymnastics required there are hilarious. Boehner's got nothing.
So why not just take SS totally off the table? Obama could do that. But then what?
If Obama says he's not open to considering any cuts, the resulting standstill becomes his fault. By claiming to be willing to consider cuts, Obama ensures that the GOP remains as the obstacle. It forces them to step forward with their own proposal, and that does not work in their favor.
On DU, this is an outrage because, well ... "how dare he!!" ... but think about how Obama's stance will help the Democratic candidates going forward. Dems in largely blue areas can jump up and down and defend Social Security. Dems in Purple and Reddish places can talk about the need for compromise by both sides". And the GOP in both cases has no where to go.
Most Americans would like a government in which compromise is possible. Now it is true that compromise with the current GOP is all but impossible, and everyone on DU knows that. But the rest of America is not DU. The rest of America is not as sure of this as those of us on DU. Obama's audience for this is that part of America.
We've had almost 4 years of hair-on-fire OPs predicting that Obama was about to make a deal to cut Social Security. It started even before Simpson Bowles had its first meeting, and the hair-on-fire OPs have continued ever since. Every time there is ANY negotiation (each debt ceiling, bush tax cuts, sequester, so on), DU erupts with predictions of how Obama is about to CAVE and cut a deal to cut Social Security.
Still has not happened. And its not going to happen.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...doesn't fit the current anti Obama rhetoric.
It's so much more theatrical to set hair on fire, rant and establish a reason for trolls to jump on the bandwagon.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The only OPs that make any sense are the ones that focus on asking people to contact their representatives and say "NO CUTS".
That's a logical and positive approach.
Encouraging people to basically give up and stay home is nothing more than drama class.
TheKentuckian
(24,936 posts)The ploy is a too clever by half brand of stupid. Going on RED ALERT to defend it and explain it is worse though because if you REALLY believed this line of crap you'd be happy as hell when the white hot response storms and lights into the President because that response would bolster his "actual" and negotiating position, it legitimizes the act.
Thing is you guys don't believe any such thing because if you did you'd either sit back or even join in the "play". Everybody has to play their role.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You said ...
If you read the "Obama is wrong" OPs that get posted here, they are of two basic types.
Type 1 describes the issue and then encourages DU members to get involved. The best of these include phone numbers, links to representatives, so on. They sometimes include recommendations for writing a "letter to the editor". Good ideas. Sadly, there are very few of these posted on DU.
Then there is Type 2. Type 2 we've seen about 1000 times in the last 4 years. The basic premise is ...
- Obama has an evil plan to kill social security and its about to be hatched.
- That's it, I'm quiting the Dem party
- We should stay home in the next election
- Obama is about to CAVE and cut a deal to gut SS
- Obama should just remove the cap and lower the age (as if he could just declare that)
- There is a cabal of 3rd way DU members who also want to kill SS
- they also tend to question the motives of those who don't agree (see your response to me above)
This 2nd type creates a thread in which nothing but ranting takes place. As such, it does not help to "bolster" anything other than anger of individual DU members. An anger which will drop off after no deal occurs, but which is ready to pop back up NEXT TIME. And we've had about 10 or so NEXT TIMEs already.
There are many effective ways to complain about Obama's proposals. The hair-on-fire OPs are not one of them.
aandegoons
(473 posts)Well look what that got us. We had to negotiate from a weakened hand before even starting and got a quarter of what we needed. Instead of negotiating from more than we wanted to get most of what we wanted.
dawg
(10,609 posts)Does he imagine a nation of David Brookses? Who else will be impressed by such an offer?
patrice
(47,992 posts)next year. And that's costs on both the "care" and the insurance sides of the house.
Please see my post #37 below.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)will NOT work with anyone to fix ANYTHING in this country. It's quite simple, really.
JHB
(37,128 posts)It's not as if this is some new tactic of theirs that needs to be clarified. They've been doing it since the morning after Election Day 2008 -- longer, if you count their lockstep voting in the Bush years, and the entire presidency of Bill Clinton.
Meanwhile, it pisses off a not-insignificant part of Democrats, plays into "no difference" narratives, and will certainly be used in Republican attack ads in 2014.
dawg
(10,609 posts)Certainly isn't going to learn it now. They will just hear that we proposed cutting their Social Security.
'frazzled' wrote, elsewhere, and I agree:
'I haven't jumped on the OMG thing about chained CPI because I knew the Republicans would never agree to new tax revenues in this context. I sincerely believe Obama did too, when he proposed it. I DO think he believes that a Grand Bargain is what we need to get long-term stability and just put all this behind us so we can focus on other things the government needs to do. But he is not naive about negotiating with Republicans.
This is what we call theatrics. He tried again to show them (and the country) that he'd be willing to make some extremely painful concessions if they would do the same on their side. They were never going to do it. They become the obstructionists.'
Marr
(20,317 posts)it would be hard to explain how making the Democrats into the 'party that tried to cut Social Security" is going to help them in 2014. This whole "rope a dope" line seemed like wishful thinking to me even with a looming election season, but in the present context it's become laughably unrealistic.
I think the truth is very simple. He offered a deal he considered acceptable. I assume he's left room for "compromise", too-- though I am admittedly a pessimist. On the other hand, "pessimist" has come to mean something like "clairvoyant" in recent years, so there you go.
randome
(34,845 posts)If he makes this offer and it's accepted, then a House/Senate committee would work out the differences. Which means pretty much nothing could be assumed.
elleng
(130,126 posts)so We the People have to FIRMLY press the repugs to get off of their arrogant behinds and DO THE WORK of the people.
CTyankee
(63,769 posts)back to square one. I don't know how Obama gets past this...he can give up and say "I tried and they refused", I guess...
elleng
(130,126 posts)'I've tried, and they continue to refuse.'
CTyankee
(63,769 posts)to be part of the solution, not the problem and the repubs don't want that at all...
elleng
(130,126 posts)Just listening to PBS Nightly Business Report, folks describing slowdown and continued weakness of economy, and I say: What else is new, repugs will NOT allow progress while this President is in office.
CTyankee
(63,769 posts)but the problem is if they make it an issue AGAINST Obama "he proposed cuts to SS".
Skraxx
(2,965 posts)He's NOT running for anything anymore.
In fact, this could be considered smart, strategic political positioning.
He's continuing to keep the GOP pinned in their extreme, ideological corner, by offering them something that by any measure they should jump at. And yet, as usually, they reflexively refuse it. They are pinned down.
On the other side, he's giving the Congressional Democrats a populist rallying cry. They can circle the wagons to protect SS from cuts. Looking like the fighters for the middle class willing to take the fight even against their own President.
Obama is in the middle, taking the heat from all sides. That's how you spend political capital. And why not? Again, he's not running for anything. He's not on the ticket. There's no reasonable reason why Obama's position should have any negative effect on '14 if Dems come out strong to protect SS. Obama can afford to play the middle like this, take the fire and keep the GOP pinned down, and it allows to the Dems to seize the populist banner going into '14.
BadgerKid
(4,541 posts)to get any real legislation passed. I'll have to go look which seats are up in 2014....
KaryninMiami
(3,073 posts)I get it that people are concerned and chances are good that there will be changes and adjustments ahead to reduce costs and bring in revenues. But I have not lost faith in this President and his skills in both poker and in chess. Even at the risk of rallying the progressives - of which I am one- into a tizzy- he knows that the GOP will not accept anything he proposes period. He knows this and he knows also that this will help us in 2014. I believe this is indeed a bluff.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)Great point about the Congressional Dems and populism. I think the president is setting the stage for them to look like the good guys.
elleng
(130,126 posts)Our very serious and difficult job is to show the electorate what happens, and why. Not looking forward to this, but the only way for the U.S. (and democracy) to survive is to regain a majority in the House, and a SUPER majority in the Senate.
randome
(34,845 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
trof
(54,255 posts)Any cuts would be devastating to us.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I do not think Obama is making a public argument that it is a good thing to cut SS when he does not think it is a good thing to cut SS, all as part of some bragging rights stratagem to win over Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Alan Simpson... all the cool people.
That would be insane, reckless and perverse behavior.
Obama is not insane, reckless or perverse.
Obama thinks, for whatever reason, that SS needs to be fixed, and should be fixed by reducing future benefits, and that he can get some tax increases in exchange for that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I reject this argument that Obama is a reckless moron...Obama is not insane, reckless or perverse. "
...you be sure?
I don't necessarily believe he's "bluffing," but there has to be a reason Boehner isn't taking this deal. Maybe it's because Republicans are dead set against revenues, which means that nothing the President offers is going to be good enough.
It could also have to do with the details of the proposal, which no one has seen. Maybe Boehner suspects there is something else there that makes accepting it not worth it.
By Steve Benen
<...>
And if you're a progressive who strongly opposes changes to Social Security and Medicare, I have good news for you: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hasn't seen Obama's new budget, but he's already rejecting it out of hand.
House Speaker John Boehner immediately dismissed President Barack Obama's package of significant new entitlement cuts tied to new tax revenues, calling them "no way to lead and move the country forward." <...>
"The president got his tax hikes on the wealthy with no corresponding spending cuts," Boehner said. "At some point we need to solve our spending problem...."
And the Speaker got his $1.5 trillion in spending cut with no corresponding revenue in August 2011. I wonder why Boehner continues to struggle with the basics of the fiscal debate, as if he just weren't paying attention to the details. Presumably, the nation's most powerful Republican lawmaker would have an easier time keeping up on current events.
In any case, I found it especially interesting that Boehner told reporters this morning, "If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes,"
That's actually an amusing, albeit familiar, trick. Boehner has effectively told the president, "You need to put Medicare and Social Security cuts on the table." So Obama is now responding, "Fine, I'll accept Medicare and Social Security cuts if you accept revenue." To which Boehner is now responding, "Now that we agree on Medicare and Social Security cuts, there's no need for revenue."
In other words, Obama is offering to trade one thing for another, while Boehner wants to look at the offer as a gift.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/05/17619397-boehner-rejects-obama-budget-sight-unseen
Volaris
(10,260 posts)is flat laughable.
DearHeart
(692 posts)we would have enough money coming in to SS so that people wouldn't have to face having their SS benefits cut. That would also secure SS for the generations behind the baby boomers. Increasing the amount being taken in through payroll deductions is a much better idea.
We could also raise the cap, which would be a hell of a lot less painful to millions of people, than cutting/reducing their benefits.
Why does it seem that to everyone in DC, cutting benefits is the only way to save SS?
Hekate
(90,189 posts)He told everyone who would listen to call and write their Reps in Congress to pass the bill. He told Congress to pass the bill.
And what did the GOP do?
>crickets<
What did the GOP do?
>crickets<
Right. They pretended he had said or done nothing,
DearHeart
(692 posts)He's not talking about this as much as he should be. A speech in Miami about construction jobs and a speech about mapping the brain isn't going to do anything either. Only 88,000 jobs were created last month and 500,000 people stopped looking for work. We have a real unemployment rate of about 14%,I know that it's not all Obama's fault, but I also don't think ANYONE is doing enough about jobs.
CTyankee
(63,769 posts)"fixing" SS, but that he feels he cannot change the conversation which tends to say that we "have to do something about entitlements." I think he chose the lesser of several evils, altho what he chose was bad enough. I think he is pretty desperate to get out of the sequestration trap...and the republicans know it...
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022621226
...that framing needs to end.
Marr
(20,317 posts)you'd do it by proposing wildly unpopular things.
?
The reverse-engineered excuses are always good for a laugh.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Hey, way to value our elderly.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I'm tired of seeing the 99% get the shaft.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)if you're planning on weaseling out of it later.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...rank and file Republicans who have retired or who will retire soon don't want their earned benefits touched any more than Democrats in the same position.
I laugh every time the President offers up cuts to social programs in return for tax increases on the wealthy. I know Dems in the Senate will never support cuts to social programs, and the House GOP Tea-Nazis will never support tax increases on the wealthy.
I also laugh because the same DU posters go loop-the-loop every time it comes up. Very entertaining!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)A real yuk-fest.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....My family has been struggling bad for the last four years. We've sold off everything of value, gone through a loan modification, been hounded by bill collectors, and my wife has had to work two jobs because I became unemployable when I turned 58.
But, despite all of that, I know how not to have knee-jerk reactions to every comment posted to DU.
tblue37
(64,979 posts)They don't really want to outlaw it, because that would take it off the table as a wedge issue, so for decades they've carefully refrained from doing anything to outlaw abortion.
Unfortunately, though, the Republican games have gotten the state houses stacked with teabaggers who really do want to outlaw abortion, and they are doing so obliquely by making it impossible for most women to access one even while the procedure stays techniquely legal. I bet most establishment Repubs are not happy about that, because in the long run they will lose the wedge issue while also enraging more people who will get off their duffs andvote against them. But the wedge issue led to a constant barrage of anti-abortion propaganda that changed the conversation in a way that made it possible for radical Repubs to make access to abortion impossible for many women.
Obama may well be bluffing, but by allowing the Repubs to frame the conversation this way--i.e., that deficits are our major current problem and that benefits must be cut--he could be creating a situation in which the benefit cuts that he doesn't really want to see enacted (if, in fact, it is a bluff to create a wedge issue) eventually do end up happening.
He needs to make better use of the bully pulpit and get the public on his side to prevent cuts--if that is what he really wants. I certainly do hope he doesn't reallywant cuts--but who knows?
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)That is just as unconscionable as not bluffing.
And he'll make himself look so reckless and untrustworthy that he'll take the Democratic party down with him.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)forever afterwards, these budget discussions will always begin with, "Even Barack Obama, the blacknationalistcryptomuslimkenyansocialist, agreed that these budget busting entitlements HAVE to be cut! Even Barack Obama said that, so how can you Democrats pretend that they are sacrosanct now?"
So, he's done that damage already, even if he is stopped this time.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)What does he gain? People already have many many examples of Republican Obstructionism. One more example means little. He did piss off his base. To what end?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)ain't nothin' good to see over that naked ugliness.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)I think Kevin Drum has it right.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Was he not voted into office to DO it himself?
pacalo
(24,721 posts)having to beg for mercy, either. After Dubya's reign of terror, many of us are pretty much exhausted with having to beg to our legislators to end the madness.
But I also realize that Obama is in a difficult situation having to deal with the insanity of the Republicans. I may not like it, but I understand where he's coming from.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)what HE wants to do anyway?
And it clearly is.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)For now, I think he wants us, including Republican voters who depend on SS, to be outraged enough to put the presssure on.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)people felt about cutting SS? But he trots it out again anyway.
I think it's time to acknowledge that he IS serious about this and he is NOT just offering it to Repugs to elicit pressure. He's offering it because it is what HE wants.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)I know he's a good man & I'd be very upset if he reneged on his 2012 "not on my watch" platform in regard to SS, Medicaid, & Medicare 'holy three'.
Having worked with impressive managers, I've seen how they are always thinking ahead at the next steps & the 'what-ifs' of all scenarios before they take action.
Like you, I'm very concerned. These are crazy times.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)It's NOT clear that Obama WANTS to sacrifice SS...not to me anyway. So we are down to who reads his mind better? Hardly something I'm going to get up in arms about at this point.
For anyone that has any knowledge of haggling and negotiating, if Obama is to negotiate with Republicans, what should he use as a viable bargaining chip? What should he use as the object that the Republicans would see as serious motivation? The number of railroad crossings, Another tunnel or a bridge? Republicans KNOW that items such as unemployment, ss and medicare are the sacred cows to Dems. NO ONE can negotiate without a real bargaining item...it just can't be done.
The question is, will that bargaining item be so watered down in the long process as to be negligable and can the OTHERSIDE be seen to save face when they concede something that their side values so greatly. The RIGHT are going to be cutting off the corporations. Citizens United will be overturned and corporate money will not save them.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)ananda
(28,782 posts)nt
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You know what always happens when Daddy gambles with the Rent Money?
Sooner or later, we lose our house.
It doesn't matter how GOOD a gambler President Obama is,
if he keeps pushing Social Security into the pot,
sooner or later, it won't come back,
and THEN, it will be gone forever.
Even Booby Fischer lost at Chess occasionally.
There is also the collateral damage.
Not so long ago, Social Security was the inviolate 3rd Rail of Politics,
Touch It and you DIE!!!!.
Thanks to President Obama, it has NOW been diminished to just another chip on the table. The TABOO has been destroyed.
Social Security will NOW be On-the-Table in every future budget "Negotiation" until it is gone.
The precedent HAS been established.
This deflowered virgin can't be unscrewed.
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
patrice
(47,992 posts)cuts to Social Security and that specifically includes a Chained CPI.
My THEORY for that response is that the Senator is positioning himself relative to "health" "care" costs and the BIG lever for creating downward pressure on those, coming next year: the ACA health care insurance exchanges. If SS benefits are cut, downward force on health care costs is justified, so Senator Pat Roberts does not support cutting SS benefits, so he can say leave all of those fat middle-wo/men salaries alone in the health care providers and health care insurance markets alone . . . .
just a guess as to why the penultimate Republican would miss an opportunity to cut Social Security - it's not exactly as if the guy has to worry about holding his senate seat or anything, even if he does support SS cuts, so what else could be going on here???
sheshe2
(83,324 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Single Payer is what we want, BUT HOW WE GET THERE can make the difference between a viable program for ALL generations to come, or something that burns itself out in a decade.
I remember BO outlining the issues around health care costs. #1. was the need for universal coverage, the mandate, in order to create large enough pools of various sets of needs to make the market conform to the needs instead of the needs conform to the market.
So, we got that done and #2. Medical costs MUST go down, otherwise the whole raison d etre for national health care is negated, because the rising health care costs are one of the biggest cripplers of our economy.
I have to wonder how just slamming everything into Public Option gear would have worked out health-care-cost-reduction-wise. Maybe we would have seen some effect in the short term, from those who could position themselves, cold-turkey, in that market, but the evolution of that market toward what the PEOPLE want, which is more coverage of more services and service alternatives, would have been severely limited, right? by the limitations in those for whom relatively generic inexpensive "care" packages would have been acceptable. And those problems could have killed it, before the whole thing ever got anywhere near being the kinds of changes that we actually need that are systemically directed by policy toward prevention and health.
Everyone needs to do much more thinking about exactly how things would/could/should happen.
And in that spirit, universal pre-K, could very definitely have an effect upon many many many economic issues, not the least of which is downward pressure on "health" "care" costs.
sheshe2
(83,324 posts)Quality Early Learning for Our Youngest Children
The President will also launch a new Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership program, to support states and communities that expand the availability of Early Head Start and child care providers that can meet the highest standards of quality for infants and toddlers, serving children from birth through age 3. Funds will be awarded through Early Head Start on a competitive basis to enhance and support early learning settings; provide new, full-day, comprehensive services that meet the needs of working families; and prepare children for the transition into preschool. This strategy combined with an expansion of publicly funded preschool education for four-year olds will ensure a cohesive and well-aligned system of early learning for children from birth to age five.
The President is proposing to expand the Administrations evidence-based home visiting initiative, through which states are implementing voluntary programs that provide nurses, social workers, and other professionals to meet with at-risk families in their homes and connect them to assistance that impacts a childs health, development, and ability to learn. These programs have been critical in improving maternal and child health outcomes in the early years, leaving long-lasting, positive impacts on parenting skills; childrens cognitive, language, and social-emotional development; and school readiness. This will help ensure that our most vulnerable Americans are on track from birth, and that later educational investments rest upon a strong foundation.
Our children are our future, early education will give our children a base, a starting point to grow. An educated child has the ability to give back to society as they age. They will be less of a burden and more of an asset to our future. Do not rule out a kindergartener, with the right start and continued education, well they could change the world.
she
ruffburr
(1,190 posts)As a poker player I know one has to run on the gut and bluff, While a risky move, It does put the repugnant ones in the position of once again obstructing progress at any cost with this pres. In the end as usual the people will see who's screwing who and why, Just in time for 2014, Thats my hope/opinion.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)And has allowed them to run amok with their thinly veiled bigotry.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I can't stop laughing at how ridiculous your post is.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)That thing that happened on Dec 31 was them agreeing to making permanent a part of the Bush tax cuts, which is why Norquist was cool with it.
An actual tax increase? Never happen. So he presents himself as reasonable, says to the public I was reasonable, they weren't, and hopefully we get a Dem majority in 2014 and finally make some real progress.
The Reps won't move until they're out of power in all three branches and stay out for a while. That's the goal. Everything Obama has been doing is pointed towards that goal.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)As has been said elsewhere on this thread, social security doesn't contribute to the deficit. To insist on a cut in social security because of the deficit makes no sense. So when Obama goes along with that he is not being reasonable.
Obama can't look reasonable by Republican standards, because those standards are totally wacko. What he seems to be doing with social security now is trying to meet wacko Republican standards in some way. This isn't going to get him anyone's respect. Republicans will say it isn't enough (as they would if he handed them the Moon) and Democrats will wonder why he's become a Republican.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)But you have to remember that in the end, should anything actually happen, it would have to pass through a House/Senate conference committee before it ever makes it to his desk to sign. I don't see it surviving that process, not with all of the pressure being put on by upset Dems (of which yours truly is one, having signed that petition from Sherrod Brown, and I'll be sending letters out to my two senators here in NJ re the same subject).
So Drum is right: let Obama propose, Sanders and the rest of us should keep beating him up for proposing it, and the Reps will continue to look completely unreasonable for not considering a proposal for which he is catching considerable heat on his left flank.
As has also been pointed out, the deficit has been getting incrementally better, and barring anything crazy will continue to do so. The Reps will find themselves without a real issue come next year. Everyone will be wondering what they're jumping up and down about.
It's a winning formula for 2014. That's the goal.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)Obama does something unreasonable and the Reps respond to it in an unreasonable way so now everyone looks unreasonable (because they are) and then the Dems get Congress in 2014?
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)and a majority is what you need to win elections.
His job is to play to the middle, and make Boehner stay way over on the right, because he has to. The fiscal cliff negotiations showed he has no control over his members. So Boehner can't make a deal. All Obama has to do to expose his powerlessness and the obstinacy of the Reps is to propose a deal. At that point it's game over for the Reps because they're not interested in a deal.
It's not even chess, it's checkers.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)by proposing to cut Social Security -- a move that doesn't help the deficit and that may do great harm to many people. So Obama looks like a traitor.
That is unless he turns around later and says, "I was just bluffing to show everyone what you guys would do." I don't think politicians say such things. If he does -- or even if he doesn't say it but everyone can see it -- no one will trust him in the next negotiation. I can't imagine that he'd be willing to give up his negotiating credibility.
And that's just on the assumption that you're right and these social security cuts don't go through.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)The Prez can only propose.
Actual bills have to pass both parts of Congress for anything real to happen. There is precisely zero chance of that happening as long as there is a single penny of taxes in anything Obama proposes. Look at Boehner's reaction to this proposal if you don't believe me.
Boehner has a title but no power. He can't negotiate because he has no position from which to start a negotiation. No one in his party will back him if he allows a single penny of tax increases to go through. He knows it, and so does the President.
In military terms Obama's set up a killing field. Obama's manning the outer wall of the castle protecting SS and Medicare, and Boehner and his Republicans have by all appearances breached it. But now they face a second, inner wall. The Dems are up top on that wall. So now Obama and company are way up high on the first wall, Sanders and his folks are way up high in the inner wall, and Boehner and his Republicans find themselves between them and down low, hemmed in by their complete inability to actually negotiate because they have no intention of actually ceding anything on the tax front.
All that remains is to pick them off in 2014.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)Once Obama puts social security cuts in his proposal, one of three things has to happen.
1) Congress can send him back a budget that includes his cuts. I am not so sure as you are that this cannot happen. Who knows what the Republicans are really thinking and what they will really do? When they see the budget going nowhere and they've got Obama where they want him, offering up a delicious social security cut, something they've been salivating over for years, is it not possible that enough of them will ask Grover Norquist to release them from their vows that this thing could pass the House? After that, of course, there's still your "inner wall" of Senate Democrats (plus Bernie) who won't vote for social security cuts. But that's a pretty shaky thing to have to rely on. Oh, I'm sure Bernie is solid, as are many others -- but are they enough? There could be enormous pressure in the form of a bill that contains social security cuts but must pass because it contains something essential.
Or Congress can send Obama back a budget that does not include his cuts. Now what does Obama do?
2) He maintains his position as being willing to cut social security. So he still looks like a traitor. This is who is running our country: someone who would undermine the retirement program that we've been paying into our whole working lives.
Or
3) Obama announces, "I was only bluffing, and the Republicans fell for it." In other words, he'd let the Republicans know he'd been negotiating in poor faith. If he does that, then in future negotiations Republicans will always be looking for a trap in whatever he proposes. Serious negotiators don't bluff, because doing so detracts from their credibility.
And a lot can happen between now and November 2014. As important as the budget is, it is just one of many issues that will affect the election outcome.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)That Republicans have rejected Democrats' offers to compromise before and therefore will again?
Maybe, but I would not count on it. Maybe they're waiting for Democrats' offers to get bigger and bigger and when they finally figure they've got all they're gonna get, they'll take it.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)This has been Obama all along: offer them what they agreed to earlier. They reject it. It makes them look unreasonable. Which they are.
You run on that (see, I offered them what they already said they wanted, and they said no), win. They don't get what they want anyway. We do.
They were furious after the fiscal cliff, when they realized they didn't get any budget cuts at all. That's actually why they're resisting any tax increases this time around, because their supporters figure they got rolled.
Meantime, he gets most of what he wants, and moves the debate to the left. We're already here on the left, so it's a little hard to see from here, but it's what he's doing, very deliberately.
He makes it look easy, which is maybe why you're not seeing it. It's not, it's actually very hard. But he's succeeded in making them destroy themselves.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)We need actual serious people not poseurs.
Jakes Progress
(11,121 posts)It has worked so well for people so far. I mean we do have universal health coverage, right? And we've gone back to Clinton era tax rates, right? Oh. And how nice that Gitmo is empty. Not to mention that we got our civil rights back from the bush Patriot shit. And we love our fully funded public education.
Yeah. That chess master is so good.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Next thing you know they will reframe FDR into being a liberal ...oh wait ...hrmmm
drm604
(16,230 posts)He's offering something which includes tax increases, something he knows the Republicans will never accept. If he was sincere in what he's offering he wouldn't do that. It would make no sense.
It's not chess (before someone mocks me with that stupid "chess" meme), it's politics.
In the extremely unlikely event that the Republicans did accept it, the Democratically controlled Senate would reject it, so he's risking nothing.
CTyankee
(63,769 posts)cut your Social Security benefits" to tar all Democrats running for office. Watch it happen in the 2014 election...
Skraxx
(2,965 posts)The only person they can attack with it is Obama, and so what? He's not running for anythings.
The Dems can rally around a populist "Save SS!" banner and look like real fighters for the middle class who even go up against their own President to protect SS.
Obama can afford to spend the political capital. He's not on any ticket in '14 and never running again. He's betting he can stand the heat he's gonna get, and why can't he?
Meanwhile, there's plenty of other, distracting red meat to throw around to divert attention from this political positioning; equality, immigration, gun responsibility...all read meat wedge issues that Dems are on the right side of.
This is pure political position by Obama, using his political capital to be the lightning rod that pins the GOP in an ideological corner and sets up the Dems as the populist fighters protecting the middle class.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,149 posts)It seems to me to be a good way to lose. The Republicans lost the House in 2006 when Bush lost any respect among the independents and republican voters.
Democrats are associated with a Democratic president. There's no way around that. If you think this is the way to get more people to vote for Democrats, then Obama would need to take the next step - resign from the party, so that Democrats can actually say "he's not with us".
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The only demographic republicans have any strength in is on SS.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)for if or when he does make the cuts. And remember, even the most intelligent people can be wrong and unlucky.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)But if Obama rapes our Senior Citizens... well, that's OK, ...because he is playing Chess.
BALONEY.. Obama has proven time and again.. he works for the Wall Street Banksters... look at his cabinet and appointments.
Get on the phone ASAP. Call your Senator.
Call you Congressman... because if Dems dont make a big noise in the next few days.. you can kiss what's left of your retirement goodbye.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)is just "Bluff," too, huh?!
Where do they get these ppl??? NOBODY is buying into your little prefabricated version of irreality, buddy.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Like there is absolutely NO churn going on in certain sectors over the legalization of a major cash flow known as cannabis?
Hekate
(90,189 posts)I grow weary of outrage, I grow weary. We'll see what happens, and in the meantime keep the pressure on our Reps.
In other news, the GOP is going schismatic, as Huckabee threatens to take his base and go home. That, people, is a good sign.
libdude
(136 posts)As was pointed out bluffing is a strategy so is reading someone bluffing and calling their bluff at an appropriate time in the game. If a person develops a reputation as someone who bluffs, well, you know the rest.
My problem is that to most people, their Social Security and Medicare benefits are not stakes in a political poker game, they constitute the very basis of what is left to the base of their lives. I would belive that the President would garner solid support if he drew a hard line such as Senator Sanders has done. To make an emphatic and unequivocable statement, the earned benefits of Social Security and Medicare are not items for negotiations, take that to the American people and there is his solid base and the present and future base of a Democratic party.
tblue37
(64,979 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)But I think the President knows that republicans can't see the future for looking at their own asses. The President wants to set republican officeholders up to get gutted during the 2014 election. Once the President is rid of enough republicans, then some significant and important legislation can get passed, and that legislation will solve problems.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Obama has been played again. Obama would have a hard time beating himself in a game of tic-tac-toe.....
William769
(55,124 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)broadcaster75201
(387 posts)Obama is a Reagan Conservative. Why some refuse to see that is utterly beyond me. Hell, Reagan was more liberal than Obama in some areas. Now a Reagan Conservative isn't the worst thing in the world. It's not even close to the horror of TeaBaggery.
However, he is a Reagan Conservative nonetheless and it is bad. It is disastrous. But good God I hope Liberals don't pitch a fit again and sit out 2014 like they did in 2010.
I do not like Obama politically. I have never liked Obama politically. Why? Conservatism is bad for America and bad for humanity.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)If this is a bluff, it is extremely reckless. It's a bet on the future, and maybe existence, of your party in exchange for what? Traction on a throwaway issue? Honestly, nobody but idiot libertarians and self-important jackasses on TV care about the deficit. That issue only has traction if you specifically evade winning issues like employment and rising wages. We saw that very clearly in 2012.
Barack Obama has NEVER shown himself to be audacious, much less reckless. The idea that he would run a bluff of this size is simply too ridiculous to believe if you've watched him over the last few years. His 2008 campaign was notable not because he displayed any kind of vision, but for its discipline and lack of mistakes. Those aren't qualities one usually finds in conjunction with gambling the future of your party on one toss of the dice.
Let's be honest. His concern has always been legacy over actual accomplishment. The problem with that approach is that eventually your "legacy" catches up with what you actually did.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Blech. That is not a good situation.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)I wouldn't have expected anything else.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)He already had half of the (voting) country against him, now he's forcing his most staunch supporters to rail against him. The damage is now done.
I guess one way to look at it is tell yourself that a good deal means people on both sides are unhappy.
But you'd be foolish to think this. One side is terminally unhappy regardless of the policy. Thusly, making the more unhappy won't lose you supporters. On the other hand, making your side unhappy *for a stunt!* comes at a price.
Rs can point to this as a defining moment in his presidency: he's no leader. He's turning his own party against him...for a stunt!!! That's not leadership.
They can say this, and they'd be right to do so.
TheKentuckian
(24,936 posts)and even would encourage it because the response is absolutely part and parcel of the bluff.
Why be upset with the hand wringing? It is a critical element of the theater.
The fact that the same folks preaching this theory are also the one crying foul at the reaction highlights a high level of intellectual dishonesty and/or wishing and hoping while clinging to a lie screaming at those poking holes in their veil of cognitive dissonance.
The logic makes no sense, just once more we can demonstrate the Republican obstruction and we will win is fucking crazy talk, this bastard have a rap sheet twelve miles long.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)just fucking DISGUSTING
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Larrylarry
(76 posts)The speaker demanded cuts to entitlements
the president put it on the table and called the speakers bluff and the speaker rejected it
the circle is complete