What Was Obama Thinking! How did he allow himself to "Step Into It!"

[KoKo]

New poll: Seniors of both parties revile chained CPI
Two-thirds of respondents over 50 say they're less likely to support anyone who backs Obama's proposal
By Joan Walsh

Though Democrats were buoyed by the higher turnout of young and non-white voters in 2012, the senior vote particularly matters in midterm elections. In 2010 they made up 23 percent of the vote, up from 16 percent two years earlier, while 18-29-year-old participation dropped from 18 to 11 percent in those same two years. Seniors helped trigger the GOP-Tea Party landslide that year, and it will take Democrats years to shovel out of it.

Obama’s budget won’t help. Already House Majority Leader John Boehner has rejected it, and it’s possible all the president has done is attach his name to a hugely unpopular proposal. Let’s recall that Republicans have been hoping he would do that for ages. As Ron Fournier wrote last month, in a piece suggesting Republicans might consider tax hikes if Obama agreed to “entitlement cuts”:

What is the GOP incentive to deal? First, getting the signature of a Democratic president on a bill reducing entitlements would be a victory for a generation’s worth of Republican candidates. Casting GOP politicians as Granny-bashers would be harder to do after a Democratic White House tweaks Medicare and Social Security. Second, even token reforms by Obama in 2013, opens the door to deeper entitlement changes in the future.

And without a bipartisan budget deal that backs these cuts, it’s possible Republicans just got an even bigger gift: that chained CPI becomes an idea associated with Democrats alone. That ought to play well in 2014. Of course, the Senate unanimously approved Sen. Bernie Sanders’ resolution opposing a switch to the chained CPI by voice vote, showing no senator in either party wants his or her name on the proposal. For now, publicly at least, Obama stands alone.

MORE and an interesting read from Joan Walsh at
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/new_poll_shows_many_hate_chained_cpi/

[truebluegreen]

1. It's what he is. It's what he's always been.

Not a commie, not a socialist, not a radical leftist. Just an appeasing Blue Dog Corporate Dim.

[KoKo]

7. I think he's a Pragmatist....but I can see him as a Blue Dog, also.

Whatever he is ...he has almost 4 More Years in WH...and if we have problems with some of his policies...it's long past time to SPEAK UP NOW...or who the hell knows what kind of shape we will be in after 4 more years if he listens to the same folks who guided him in his FIRST 4 Years!

He needs to WAKE UP...and SHAKE UP!

[truebluegreen]

8. +1000

[Demeter]

2. Think?

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time..."

and that's close enough for politics!

Think? Shirley, you jest!

[graham4anything]

3. There are many more house republicans and the only demographic the repubs have

the only demo the republicans have is white seniors.

As such, the very people getting the most mad are the one and only people who vote for the house reps that are republican

ERGO, the dems are going to win a landslide.

President Obama ropesthedopes yet again, with the 10 step ahead program.

it makes the house turning blue so so so so much easier.

And makes Hillary even a far better choice just two years later.

It is apiece of beautiful artwork. A Monet in progress.

Every other minority is Democratic and not to mention

35 people a day die from guns.
As such, those 35 never reach senior status.

Demographics are with the democratic candidates 18 to 49 are solid dems, and
75% of the women nationwide are dems.

Ain't President Obama wonderful? I sure think so.
Not since the great LBJ has a president played the game so well.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

4. He sure did...

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.

[tularetom]

5. He has let himself be maneuvered into being the one to propose cutting SS

It doesn't matter that others have proposed the same thing or worse in the past, they were republicans and they can get away with it because the liberal media won't go after them for it.

Obama however will be labeled by the beltway pundits as the guy who tried to kill SS making it very difficult for him to use it against the republicans in the 2014 midterms.

For some reason I don't hear much about 12 dimensional chess these days.

[KoKo]

6. I have to hope that the backlash will have him rethinking

his positioning. We have almost four more years of his administration and he really should be changing course if this is the direction he thought was a wise one. As this article points out...the Democratic Party is going to suffer for this in 2014 and that is not a good thing! Because people will become angry thinking that both parties are the same...and there will be civil unrest due to the suffering of "the people" of BOTH PARTIES.

His policies are starting to cause instability. And after Eight Long Years of BUSH II.....Democrats expected better. Obama was forgiven in his first term....but as more comes to light about Wall Street Corruption (and lack of prosecution for the Crooks who brought down our Financial System), more interventions in the Middle East and new Trade Agreements that favor Corporations, plus the Privatization of our Educations system, Pipelines and Fracking that could endanger our citizens and other policies like Monsanto's lock on Seeds, etc. there really does need to be a change in his strategy.

[forestpath]

9. He did it deliberately, because he wanted to. I think the question is WHY he wanted to.

And why did he run as a Democrat when he's trying to fulfill a Republican wet dream?

[KoKo]

10. I think many of us are wondering "WHY"...these days.

I just hope that he "changes course"...given that it's looking out here in the hinterlands of America...that he got very bad advice. And, we Democrats were told by Center for American Progress that Obama would have the smoothist Transition of any Recent Dem President because the "Transition Team" was already in place. Many of us thought "CAP's" Message meant that the Transition Team would assure that the Repugs wouldn't be able to jump all over Obama like they did when Clinton came in as the "Voice of the Man from Hope" and start their crazy stuff like they did with Hillary supposedly killing Vince Foster and the Rush Limbaugh Crazy stuff with tapes by Repug Congressmen shooting watermelons...etc.

But...if Center for American Progress picked Obama's Cabinet they did a Bang Up Job for Wall Street...but not GOOD for an America in confusion after Eight Years of Bush II with "Stolen Election 2000, followed by 9/11" and then Iraq and Afghanistan Invasions plus the final "Parting Shot" of America's Financial Melt down as Bush II left the WH!

Something went wrong there in the Dem Establishment . I think we will find out whatever it was in the coming almost Four Years of Obama's next term.

[forestpath]

11. I don't think he will - he and his minions will repeat that "balanced" bullshit like automatons

until the end of time.

It's obvious he operates from the exact same kind of protective bubble that Bush did.