To all those who have been telling us for months . . .

[markpkessinger]

. . . often in the most condescending manner possible, that this President will never propose Social Security cuts, and who told those of us who were trying to sound the alarm that we were either just chicken-little-sky-is-falling types who just didn't understand eleventy-dimensional chess, or that we somehow "enjoyed" complaining about the President and would seize on any opportunity to do so, since he has now officially proposed those cuts in the form of chained CPI, y'all can start apologizing any day now . . .

[safeinOhio]

1. Just think where SS would be today

if Rmoney had been elected.

[cantbeserious]

3. Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

eom

[Plucketeer]

234. Perfect reply

And we've got (D) hero, Slick Willie, to thank in part, for Obama's course on this. That Willie's whispers are heard, can also be seen in Barack's dogged determination regarding the TPP that's being custom crafted for our backsides.

[Hoyt]

4. That's the way I look at it.

[tomp]

199. then you're part of the problem. nt

[Hoyt]

201. Nope. You are shortsighted, focusing on one little aspect of a much bigger picture.

[TheMadMonk]

256. The much bigger picture, is that they've BOTH been doing it to America.

The Democratic candidates are just better at making people think they wanted it.

[markpkessinger]

6. My, but that's setting the bar awfully low . . .

. . . when Democrats defend indefensible actions by one of our own by invoking "X.__ Republican would have been worse," you know the party has hopelessly lost its way.

[firenewt]

21. So I'm supposed to be happy with the "lesser of two weevils?" Sorry if I feel betrayed by a

President who raised my hope for a better country. Someone who would stand up to the GOP.

[markpkessinger]

25. I think you intended your reply . . .

. . . to go to safeinohio's message.

[firenewt]

30. Sorry, your are right. Sucks being old

[BobbyBoring]

90. Beats the alternative

So they say. I'm beginning to wonder myself~

[truebluegreen]

218. "the lesser of two weevils" is the perfect description

for Dems in general and the Grand Bargainer in Chief in particular.

Mind if I steal that?

[firenewt]

232. Not at all.

[FairWinds]

236. How about "the evil of two lessers"?

[truebluegreen]

237. That's not bad either.

Welcome to DU!

[Smilo]

114. Spot on and

isn't it sad that some are doing this.

[whathehell]

134. +1 n/t

[JVS]

7. Are you implying that they wouldn't just raise the debt ceiling for Romney?

Social security would be perfectly fine. The Democratic Senate would block any Republican attempt on it. Even if we didn't have the Senate, we'd probably be able to filibuster any attack on Social security. Only a Democratic president could cajole the Senate into going forward with such an action.

[markpkessinger]

10. Excellent point! n/t

[DonCoquixote]

19. actually they would not

Romney would have gone from being their golden boy to being that mormon liberal in a week, with the tea party ramping up even more. especially as they would love to have preident Paul Ryan.

[Marr]

116. That's absurd.

They raised the debt ceiling like clockwork for GW Bush. They don't care about deficits when their guy is in office.

[DonCoquixote]

130. not when they hate Mitt

and not when Paul Ryan, aka ayn rand in a suit, is so close. I think the next GOP president will find he is hated even more than Obama.

[Marr]

131. It's absurd to claim that the GOP House would refuse to raise the debt ceiling for

a Republican president, sorry.

It was a ludicrously over-the-top move when they did it against Obama. It's just ridiculous to say they'd do the same to their own guy.

[tex-wyo-dem]

127. The paradox is that GWB actually had the...

Decency to try to steal SS funds by proposing partially privatizing the program, rather than just outright cutting it like our venerable democratic president is doing.

[JoePhilly]

228. That's some serious nonsense.

If Bush had succeeded in privatization SS, the crash in 2008 would have wiped out most seniors entirely.

Even if Obama was intent on cutting SS (which he isn't) the impact of Bush's plan was far worse.

[lark]

251. Chained CPI is a benefits cut

That's just the way it is. It's isn't pretty, but it is a fact. This time, it's even in writing, that's how serious he is about cutting benefits. He'll seemingly do anything to try to appease the losing party. I still wonder why he's acting so determined to destroy his party?

[Maraya1969]

268. Is he cajoling anyone about it? I don't think so. And he did offer it up during the fiscal

cliff negotiations and they said, "NO". And then they got nothing. So I am not hanging him on a cross until I see what happens. I think the rethugs are going to block this one also. and then we'll see what he really is trying to do.

[JVS]

271. Did I say he did?

You're objecting to something that is deep in the hypothetical realm.

[Demo_Chris]

18. It would be in exactly the same place...

Both Obama and Romney work for the same people. The only difference is that we would be opposing it rather than making excuses.

[whatchamacallit]

44. +1

[Nay]

64. +1000. Despite the howling when Obama was elected twice, the GOP knows it can get all of its

crap done under a Democratic president who won't stand up for actual Democrats. Just like destroying the welfare system was done under Clinton.

[Demo_Chris]

74. It goes both ways

There's no way the drug companies could have gotten medicare D without a Republican advancing it. It took a Democrat to pass NAFTA and another to ram through the insurance mandate.

Any of the companies I listed in my original post -- ANY of them, all alone, with no help from anyone else -- could easily afford to fund every dollar of election spending from both parties and never even notice the money was missing. They give more or less equally to both sides because they don't care -- both are going to do exactly what they are told and nothing significant happens without their approval. And what's truly sad is how cheap it actually is. You can buy congress for less money than you paid in exec bonuses.

[bread_and_roses]

99. +1000s (n/t)

[Liberalynn]

151. +1

[tblue]

250. Only difference is IOKIODI.

What a mess.

[donnasgirl]

27. With Rmoney

I would have expected it, but I did not expect to be screwed by the guy I backed who said social security was not an option, this is going to put the Democratic party back 20 years.

[curlyred]

142. What donnasgirl said

[SammyWinstonJack]

247. Except that, Obama was always going to go after what he calls 'entitlement' programs

to reduce the debt and he said as much, after taking office his first term.

So no surprise there.





He was for cuts to SS/Medicare before he was against cuts before he was for cuts.



He is a Corporate tool. They all are.

[ReRe]

259. We have "entitlement" programs in this country, alright...

... but they do not include Social Security, Medicare and Medicare. Those would be the MIC, all Corporations who don't pay taxes and yet get billions in refunds at tax time, and untold subsidies!

[ljm2002]

34. And there you have it...

...another false either/or proposition: If you don't support EVERYTHING Obama does, 100%, then you must have wanted Romney!

When President Obama starts acting like a real DEMOCRATIC President I'll get behind him. As long as he keeps acting like a Republican Lite, I will criticize him.

And no, I did not vote for Romney and never would. But I'm damned if I'll just sit idly by and say it's okay because Obama is less worse than Romney. NO President, politician or person for that matter, is above reproach. If you think Obama can't take the heat, then why did you vote for him? You did vote for him, right?

[Doctor_J]

36. That's the apologists fallback excuse on everything now

a I mean absolutely everything. At least you're now admitting that the "Hope & Change" was total bullshit, and that all you really voted for was a slowed descent into 3rd world status.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Right. Back in 2004, I said that the Republicans would drive us off a cliff at 60mph

while the Democrats would drive us off a cliff at 30mph, when what we really needed was a sharp turn left to avoid the cliff.

[Sunlei]

60. remember what Obama said about how to change the course of a large ship?

He said it years ago. And that is exactly the way the man thinks and works on these difficult issues.

[Marr]

117. What's that? Make three rights to turn left? /nt

[Sunlei]

118. no it wasn't that. /nt

[Marr]

121. Well, he sure as shit isn't slowly turning the big ship leftward. /nt

[delrem]

126. He said he should take his hands off the wheel and let the R's steer? nt

[robinlynne]

120. that explains it rather well.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Didn't our President say that he and Romney held the same opinions

On Social Security specifically?

Not that being less-awful than Romney would be a virtue. It's still awful.

[Jackpine Radical]

166. Absolutely, and I've been pointing this out periodically ever since.

This is no surprise to me. I knew it was coming. In fact, I've been expecting it at some point ever since the appointment of the Catfood Commission early in the first term. Anyone who was surprised just had their heads up their asses in denial.

[KG]

42. ah, the old 'we suck less' is your knee-jerk defense?

[rhett o rick]

62. That's a very sad and over used rationalization. We deserve so much more.

But if you are happy, who am I to try to convince you we need to fight harder.

[quakerboy]

77. You mean.. maybe getting cut?

[demwing]

79. Just think where SS would be today

if Barack Obama "The Candidate" had been elected

[WillyT]

129. LOL !!! - Perfect !!!

[Oilwellian]

185. I'll up that perfect...

to sublime.

[Marr]

113. Yeah, it'd be safe.

Remember when Bush tried to privatize it? How did that work out?

The Democratic Party is well-positioned to block attempts at cutting SS by Republicans. It's not positioned for blocking the same attempts by phony "Democrats".

[sulphurdunn]

123. Where it is now.

Romney would have had all the Republicans and the Blue Dogs on his side, just like Obama does.

[pangaia]

147. But Rmoney is NOT NOT NOT president.

That is the whole point.

[jerseyjack]

178. I don't think that is the point.

[TheMadMonk]

255. Want to buy a bridge? Free Opree house if you pay cash and sign right now.

To answer your question. Maybe a little further along the same bloody path. Or perhaps even not so far, given that Obama has freely given up things that the previous Republican Administration would not have dared ask for on the fucking 12 of September 2001 itself.

Face it. Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama, have all trodden EXACTLY THE SAME PATH.

Could even extend that back to the end of WWII, and Eisenhower's warning about the threat inherent in the Military Industrial Complex.

The sole difference for at least the last thirty odd years has lain entirely in whether they gently caressed the back of the public's neck, or just grabbed a double handful of flesh and went hell for leather.

[cantbeserious]

2. Agreed - I Have Lost Patience With The Obama Apologists That Inhabit Many Web Forums

Chained CPI, NDAA, Wall Street Coddling, Torture, Rendition, War Crimes, Drones .... The excuses are wearing thin.

[Skittles]

141. the BOGroupies are the worst

they make a mockery of DU

[blue neen]

154. I'm a member of the Barack Obama Group.

I'm not a Groupie for anyone, anywhere. It happens to be one of my subscriptions, the forums and groups that I like to read.

Please describe, in detail, how I've made a mockery of Democratic Underground.

Thank you.

[Skittles]

157. they've banned MANY true progressives

because the people who run it do not allow ANYONE with ANY legitimate criticism of President Obama

[blue neen]

160. Well, it seems to me that you're stating your opinions and criticisms quite emphatically.

Again, I'm a member of the Barack Obama Group. I'm not a "they", nor have I banned anyone.

According to your words and very ironic reasoning, because I'm a member of that group - well, then- all of us in that group SUCK.

Again, please describe to me, in detail, how I'm making a mockery of DU.

Thanks.

[Skittles]

161. you read it wrong

the people RUNNING THE GROUP do not allow for even legitimate criticism of Obama - the president himself would find that utterly ridiculous, ESPECIALLY on a so-called Democratic Board. And I do differentiate between the Groupies and other folk who simply post there.

[blue neen]

163. I don't believe I read it wrong but will take your word for it.

You seemed to make a blanket statement debasing an entire group on DU that didn't differentiate much at all.

I've seen posters on DU who have stated that they've put every member of the Barack Obama Group on ignore. It's hard to believe sometimes that people who call themselves true progressives would act in such a closed-minded manner.

Thanks, and have a good evening.

[Skittles]

164. ....

[abelenkpe]

193. ....

[dotymed]

222. By putting party or celebrity

before policy, the people who always praise and agree with B.O. have made a mockery of a supposed Progressive site. There, I said it.

[blue neen]

229. The poster made a blanket statement about people in the Barack Obama Group.

I joined that group because it's something I personally enjoy. This is a Democratic website, and choosing to join a particular group or forum would seem to be a Democratic and progressive ideal, would it not?

Since you and other posters know absolutely nothing about me, why would it be a progressive thing for you to assume that I put celebrity before my beliefs?

This is a Democratic website. I have the freedom to make the choices that I want because of it. That's not a mockery. That is what we are here for.

I also belong to the Pennsylvania forum. That doesn't mean I would never visit Ohio or find anything nice to say about Virginia.

Guess what? I happen to like President Obama and will praise him when I see fit. It doesn't mean I worship him or agree with everything he says and does. If I do or do not, that's my right.

[TheMadMonk]

257. No he made a statement about BOGroupies.

Using the root word in the sense that is was coined: Stupid little fourteen year olds who will fuck a roadie for the chance to be fucked by the entire band.

The fact that members of the DU BO DISCUSION group as a whole have assumed that appelation for themselves suggests that they are either as stupid as those aforementioned fourteen year olds, or ignorant of the word's etymology.

GROUPIE is NEVER a term to be proud of, because it is utterly rooted in the concept of being defined by connection with that which you ATTACH yourself to, and not by anything that IS yourself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

168. You better believe it.

[Summer Hathaway]

179. And the people who run

the HoF group do not allow ANYONE with any legitimate criticism of their particular 'brand' of feminism to remain in that group.

As to the 'true Progressives' on DU, their bona fides as such are not determined by their posts or their actions, but by a group of Label-Maker enthusiasts whose only criteria is "if you don't agree with ME, you are not a True Progressive (TM)".

[Andy823]

5. Links please

I would like to read his plan, could you provide a link to the information about SS cuts?

[markpkessinger]

8. I think you know how to use Google n/t

[Andy823]

146. Yes I do know how to use google

But for the life of me I can't find anything at all showing me the plan that the president is putting out, from what I hear on Wednesday. I guess there isn't any site with that plan out yet, so I guess I will wait till Wednesday and see exactly what the presidents plan is before I get all ticked off at him!

[markpkessinger]

172. A post has already provided you with a link

See #63 from CountAllVotes

[cantbeserious]

11. Using Search Engines Is Now Considered A Basic Skill

eom

[Life Long Dem]

14. It's a growth rate cut for SS

Same as cutting the growth rate in defense spending. But I don't see anyone saying they are cutting defense spending.

[GeorgeGist]

26. Hook. Line. Sinker.

Short life?

[CountAllVotes]

66. if you are a disabled worker (worst hit people are these folks)

You are fucked under this new "deal" or rip-off as I call it.

If you are on SS already you should be prepared to see a cut of 3-4% a year according the chart from SS's website.

Let's face it folks, the deal is a done deal already! That chart did not get there ovenight, its been in the works for a very long time!

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/cola.html

[Life Long Dem]

91. Congress would need to exempt the poorest elderly and disabled

[AnotherMcIntosh]

169. A signifigant number will also see Medicare cuts in the form of increased costs for Medicare.

[CountAllVotes]

208. some people are already paying close to $350.00 a month just for Medicare alone

My brother-in-law is one of them; a rather well-off retired contractor with more money that he cares to admit that he has.

He has a supplemental plan as well (Kaiser) which is costing him an additional $300.00 a month on top of the $335.00 for Medicare.

From medicare.gov's website: above $214,000 File individual tax return $335.70

More here re: this great deal!:

http://medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

Note sure how great of a deal this is for him. He worked (and still works and is pushing 80 years of age) his entire life busting his butt doing work in the trades for 65+ years. I know he is not getting care that is esp. good (recently dx'd with arthritic gout and was taken to another hospital via ambulance where nothing was done to him at all sans a few blood tests).

[CountAllVotes]

63. Here is the link

Read it and weep.


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/cola.html

[truebluegreen]

9. +1000

Even worse are those still maintaining that this is just multi-dimensional chess.

[markpkessinger]

12. They should ask Bernie Sanders . . .

. . . if he thinks this is just multidimensional chess!

[truebluegreen]

15. I wish that guy was my senator,

or, even better, that we had 50 more like him!

[Doctor_J]

41. This guy was once my senator

Sounded a lot like Bernie. Turns out he was just another bullshitting politician waiting to seel me out.

[SammyWinstonJack]

248. Wish he was still your senator. I really do.

[Phlem]

135. Apparently

they want us to refocus on 2014 and not pay attention to this.



-p

[truebluegreen]

194. Apparently they want us to lose in 2014.

[Phlem]

198. Seriously?

Done with this meme. Let's move on into the 1980's already.

You seriously think I'm voting R?





-p

[sendero]

203. When Democrats cede the last issue..

... that defined them as a party (SS), no one is going to vote Republican but a LOT of folks are going to say "why bother" and stay home. You can BANK THAT. It will be 2010 on steroids.

[Phlem]

258. I was there last time it happened

and I still voted. I can't control what other people do but I can venture what the their motivating factor might be this time. That is only one persons fault.

-p

[truebluegreen]

215. No, I don't

but if the Democrats give away their most significant accomplishment, it makes it hard to get less motivated people than ourselves to the polls. Especially in a mid-term.

edited to add: "what sendero said"

[forestpath]

13. ROFL. They're too busy polishing their talking points.

[ProSense]

16. We'll be saved:

Boehner is never going to agree to the President's proposal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022623491

[markpkessinger]

23. Well, we hope at least . . .

. . . but even if Republicans don't go along with it, the President has handed them a campaign issue for 2014 on a silver platter: "Democrats can't be trusted not to try to cut Social Security!" I can hear it now.

[SammyWinstonJack]

249. They keep telling him no and he continues to offer up more.

Seriously, WTH?

[Doctor_J]

37. We're counting on Boner to save us from Obama

wow.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Crazy huh n/t

[KG]

50. and they offer that one up like it's a good thing...

[jsr]

61. That's the beauty of multidimentional chess

or whatever the hell they call it.

[ProSense]

65. Yup. n/t

[Logical]

95. Have you said one thing about Obama being wrong on this issue?. ONE?? n-t

[ProSense]

106. I don't remember. Have you checked? n/t

[Logical]

140. No need to check actually. n-t

[Marr]

122. No, I think it's been all the usual Nth dimensional chess/brilliant bluff bullshit. /nt

[Nay]

67. I know; crazy, right? And they wonder why people don't give a shit about politics. nt

[Fuddnik]

89. Let's hope Boner never sobers up.

[Arcanetrance]

56. So does that make it ok that Obama put these proposals on the table.

Personally if I were the Republican leadership I would accept his terms. Think about this they take the social security cuts in exchange for the tax hikes. There's two elections coming up one in 2014 one in 2016 between the two they have a chance to rake the rest of the Congress and the white house between those two elections. They can than go and pass tax cuts again now they have their tax cuts and their social security cuts like they've wanted. Now who knows if this will happen but I'm not willing to gamble the future of social security and millions of people on it.

[Logical]

94. LOL, so Boehner bails out Obama. Classic. n-t

[JDPriestly]

98. So. Are you suggesting that Boehner will be the hero here

and save the seniors that Obama proposes to sell out?

I expect more of a Democratic president.

[Marr]

119. No, I expect he'll demand a few "concessions". /nt

[DonCoquixote]

17. I will admit

I never thought it would come to this.

[markpkessinger]

20. I remember seeing an interview with Gore Vidal . . .

. . . shortly after President Obama was elected in 2008, but before he took office. Vidal was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and had some reservations about Obama, but nevertheless a cautious hope. Then the interviewer asked, "What is your biggest fear about an Obama presidency?" Vidal paused for a moment, and then answered, "That he's a wolf."

[truedelphi]

109. For those of us familiar with him,

Vidal will long be missed.

[Babel_17]

183. He applied his mind with a bright focus

I haven't read that much of his work but he is quite quotable.

[woo me with science]

192. Gore Vidal

+1

[HughBeaumont]

227. At the same time, let's not pretend Hillary Clinton is some economic progressive.

I'm still waiting for one of those to run for president. On that issue, I'll be a waiting you-know-what, from the looks of things . . . .

[markpkessinger]

266. Agreed on that point . . .

. . . I offered that statement of Vidal's not to contrast the President with Hillary Clinton, but rather for his observation/fear about the President.

[L0oniX]

22. They are busy genuflecting at their Franklin Mint Obama can do no wrong placards. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

70. LOL

A funny image

[jazzimov]

24. No one ever said he wouldn't propose cuts -

we said that there would be no cuts.

And there aren't.

And, technically, the chained CPI isn't an actual cut. It's a change in the way that future increases are calculated. But regardless, it isn't going anywhere.

[markpkessinger]

28. Sounds a lot like . . .

. . . "Anyway, I didn't campaign on the public option." Sorry, but that kind of hair-splitting simply doesn't fly with voters.

[forestpath]

49. +1

[jazzimov]

82. Lieberman killed the PO.

Are you going to blame Obama for Lieberman's actions?

[markpkessinger]

85. No . ..

. . . but I will blame Obama for speaking publicly as if the Public Option were still on the table when it had already been killed.

[jazzimov]

100. What do you mean "No"?

And what do you mean "when it had already been killed"?

A simple Google search proves my point:

https://www.google.com/search?q=public+option+lieberman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[TiberiusB]

180. I tend to think Lieberman was a convenient tool

You know there is another simple Google search you can do:

[link:https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+killed+the+public+option|

[GoneFishin]

252. Obama negotiated away the public option behind closed doors.

A lesser known tactic of his back then, but one which has become familiar now.

[GeorgeGist]

29. Hook. Line. Sinker.

[jazzimov]

83. Informed.

[donnasgirl]

31. Do yourself a favor

Don't bet your house on that comment.

[jazzimov]

84. I'm close to reitrement age.

So it's a little late for that.

[Doctor_J]

59. Actually this guy said that

[Hissyspit]

75. Well, this came pretty close:

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021049049

9. President Obama has proposed reductions in social security benefits.

Specifically he has proposed changing the formula by which retirees' benefits are adjusted for inflation. This proposed change will result in the check received by retirees being a lower dollar amount than under the current formula.

In my mind any formula change that results in lower dollar amounts written on the checks mailed to retirees is a cut. But whether you can bring yourself to call it a cut or not, embrace it if you support it or else state that you oppose it if that is the case.

I support the reelection of the President. At the same time I will continue to oppose any cut in social security benefits, no matter what wording is used to describe them. I oppose cutting social security benefits because it is the exact opposite of what we need to do. Every dollar paid to a retiree is a stimulus dollar that is desperately needed. What we need to do is generate more federal payments like this to regular people and then solve the long term deficit problem (there is no short term deficit problem) by two things: stimulating the economy and taxing the wealthy.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to eomer (Reply #9)Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:23 AM
ProSense (96,441 posts)

10. Bullshit!

Post a link to such a proposal. Talking about what's being debated and making a proposal is not the same thing.

The last Democratic President to actual change the formula was Carter.

...the American story is one of perfectibility and striving for ever-greater fidelity to our ideals -- it is a journey from colony to republic, from slavery to freedom, from sexism to suffrage, from stark poverty to shared prosperity.
Thanks for the hearts.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to ProSense (Reply #10)Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:25 AM
woo me with science (18,824 posts)

12. You keep trying and trying and trying and trying and trying

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:40 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

to rewrite history.

How pathetically sad and desperate the Third Way messaging is, when it must constantly attempt to convince people that what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears isn't really happening...


"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

President Obama
July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president
Nothing will change until Americans look clearly at how the game is rigged from the start in every single negotiation, how the possible options are artificially narrowed from the start, and how every negotiation and outcome strengthens the corporate one percent. Every. Single. One.
Reply to this post

MORE AT LINK

And then there's this:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1822385

...where the OP posted this:

Why are so many DU'ers falling for bullshit? [View all]

A casual stroll through the "latest" pages brought me to this question. It seems every fifth thread is someone barking about how the Democrats / Obama had better not cut social security or medicare benefits. Lots and lots of these threads, and they all have one thing in common...

Not a single fucking shred of evidence to back themselves up with. Nobody has referenced any source from Obama or the Democratic party that cites any plan to slash into these programs. None. And yet, here are DU'ers up in arms, in a frothy rage, as if these plans were actual, and immediate.

They are not. The only "evidence" we have is a bunch of speculation and "reasonable advice" from the very same "liberal media" outlets that spent the last week nursing on Romney's cock, trying to bring his campaign back to life by wishful thinking.

Then I posted this:

64. Matt Bai: "Will Obama Agree to Entitlement Cuts? He Already Has"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/will-obama-agree-to-entitlement-cuts-he-already-has

None of this is theoretical or subjective. It’s spelled out clearly in the confidential offers that the two sides exchanged at the time and that I obtained while writing about the negotiations last spring.

In his opening bid, after the rough framework of a grand bargain was reached, Mr. Boehner told the White House he wanted to cut $450 billion from Medicare and Medicaid in the next decade alone, with more cuts to follow. He also proposed raising the retirement age for Social Security and changing the formula to make benefits less generous.

Mr. Obama wasn’t willing to go quite that far. But in his counteroffer a few days later, he agreed to squeeze $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years, with $800 billion more in the decade after that. He was willing to cut $110 billion more from Medicaid in the short term. And while Mr. Obama rejected raising the retirement age, he did acquiesce to changing the Social Security formula so that benefits would grow at a slower rate.

This distance between the two sides on entitlement spending was sizable but not unbridgeable. In the end, the deal fell apart over the ratio of cuts to revenue. Mr. Obama wanted $400 billion more in new revenue than he and Mr. Boehner had initially discussed. Mr. Boehner couldn’t sell that number to his caucus, and he wasn’t going to try without getting even more drastic cuts to entitlements in return.

Then the OP posted this, ignoring what I had posted:

96. Thanks to the teachings of Manny, HiPointDem, Fumesucker, and Bonobo, who, according to new guy Carl

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:28 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Are the only true progressives in this entire thread (since they're the ones who were insulted) I have seen the light. Braise be to Tengri (yes, braise, dude loves Mongolian barbeque) I can now see the truth, delivered by their guiding hands.

Barack obama really is a lying, deceitful, two-faced scumbag who's planning to sell us all down the river for shits and giggles. it's true! The True progressives have spoken! The rest of you... You should all feel shame! Shame at voting for this back-stabbing, tricky motherfucker. Some of you, the worst of the un-progressive, grandma-hating lot like me, actually voted for him twice. For us, it's weekly flagellation, I'm afraid.

All this time... for a little over four years, I've seen Barack Obama as a passable Liberal president, a first step in the right direction. How foolish I was. Oh, so foolish. I... indeed, all of us, save for these four mighty prophets, voted for who we thought was a man who could deliver a generally progressive agenda. But no! No, a mere week after the election... it is revealed that in truth... In truth we elected Paul Ryan in blackface.

Thank you, Manny, Hipointdem, Fumesucker, Bonobo, Cthulu2016, and New Guy Carl... Without your help, I would have never realized what immediate danger we were in. So... What now? Rally for impeachment, right? I mean, we can't let this go on, right guys? We have to take this motherfucker down, toss him in the street. I mean he's absolutely for sure going to cut every entitlement program, while also absolutely for sure passing all the savings on to the top corporate donors, right? He's going to rob us blind, like the sneaky underhanded conman he is! We have to... we have to...

Oh... bitch on the internet? Well... Seems anticlimactic. But I guess you guys can't possibly be wrong!
Reverence two-year-old NYT articles? Really, shouldn't we... No, no, you're the True Progressives.
Vote Jill Stein? Oh, now you go too far.

- because I know I'm being too subtle for some.
The Meaning of Life is to Give Life Meaning.

[Marr]

128. Now that is some interesting reading. /nt

[CountAllVotes]

78. if it is "going nowhere"

Then pray tell, why is it all spelled out in EXTREME detail on the link from the SS website?

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/cola.html

I guess these lazy Federal workers having nothing better to do with their time that make-up a bunch of lies and put them on their website?

I don't think so ... it's all been in the plans for a very LONG LONG TIME.

[markpkessinger]

92. Exactly . . .

. . . The details of implementation have been carefully thought out and detailed plans have been drawn. I seriously doubt they would do that in service of a mere "bluff."

[jazzimov]

101. As I point out below, that site lists 6 other options

and their impact in just as much detail. Do you think they are planning to implement all six even though they contradict each other? There are so many on this board that don't seem to actually check before they post - they are only echo-chambers.

[CountAllVotes]

104. I used to work for the Federal gov't

and yes, I know a few things about how they work and no, they don't draw things like this up without directions from high above. That you can believe.

Sad state of affairs at best.

[jazzimov]

97. You mean along with the other 6 options/proposals

(count 'em. SIX) listed in just as much detail on that site?

It's true that this idea has been batted around for a long time - much longer than Obama has been in office. It was originally proposed as an alternative to fully privatizing the SS. Which is what the Republicans really want.

[Marr]

124. Bull. Fucking. SHIT. Does "Firebagger" ring a bell?

The insistence from the Faithful was that Obama would never *propose* cuts to Social Security. They insisted that the rumors were "paranoia", the quotes from politicians deceitful misrepresentations, and that the people citing them should not be taken seriously.

You can do the Rumsfeld act if you like and claim they never actually said their were WMD there, so to speak, but everyone can see pretty clearly now who is not to be taken seriously.

[spanone]

32. this is nothing new, he's done it before. and like before, nothing will happen.

republicans won't agree with one fucking thing HE wants. he could propose turning the country over to republicans from white house on down and they would dismiss it.

[quakerboy]

96. Nothing new, and it cost us the house last time

Maybe he's trying to lose the senate this time?

Drawing it to logical absurdity, the repukes would disagree with anything he proposes, so he should propose cat stomping become the national past time. I mean, theres no chance it would pass, so really, pissing off most of the nation for absolutely no gain is a great idea. Right?

I dunno. On reflection, I don't think that's all that absurd a comparison. Cutting social security is not that far off of cat stomping. I'm pretty sure that very few Americans find either acceptable. And publicly tying your name to attempting either is foolish and likely to damage your reputation and the reputation of any organization you are tied too.

[AverageJoe90]

188. I'd hope so, anyway. n/t

[Sunlei]

35. how has chained CPI cut your ss check amount and by how much?

Also if your ss is the only income you have today, how come you aren't exempt?

[markpkessinger]

38. I'm 52, and don't receive S/S n/t

[sendero]

204. By all means...

... be a moron and worry about this AFTER it has happened and there is FUCK ALL that can be done about it.

[Bluenorthwest]

230. What a disengenous question, you Sunlei, do not know the rules of the exemptions. So your question

seems rather dishonest. The exemptions alluded to thus far are for those making near the poverty level only. Many millions with Social Security alone will be impacted is the exemptions are what the administration has alluded to.
Plus the 'let's worry about it after it is too late' routine is just flat out stupid

[Sunlei]

245. I don't think the republicans will ever go for current plan because of the entire attached package.

The positive side is because ss is 'on the table' the hidden waste and fraud is also on the table. The President has cut billions in waste & fraud from Medicare when that program was dragged into the budget by republicans. We have to assume similar waste/fraud profiteering in ss, a lot gone on for decades.

I really wish the President would start a national messageboard, it would have to be a big board. Americans need a place to comment and have the actual policies on hand, unfiltered by our 'media'.

[Sunlei]

40. If corporations keep raising the price of consumer goods skyhigh, ss checks could be larger?

This could be the positive side of 20 a gallon milk we will have to wait and see if proposals become reality.

just think though if romney got elected your ss check would turn into a cheap tent, a fan, 2 batteries and 60 cheap made in china meals a month- sent to you by Halaburtons for profit federal funds suction empire.

[markpkessinger]

45. As I said upthread . . .

If Democrats are defending indefensible action by one of own by appealing to "N.___ Republican would have been worse," you know the Party has lost its way.

[Sunlei]

55. I don't think panic is productive, yell and speak up yes but we have to work with what we have.

I sure as heck don't want those economic terrorists in charge, we have to get rid of those republicans they have done enough harm to America. Fighting among ourselves over a lot of disinformation is exactly what republicans want.

[markpkessinger]

68. This isn't "disinformation"

. . . Look, back when it was just news reports based on what some reliable sources were saying about the President's intentions, those of us who expressed concern were told, in effect, "There's no offer on the table yet, so everybody calm down." Then, when chained CPI appeared as part of the President's intial offer -- on the White House's website no less -- we were told, "This is just a negotiating tactic. Everybody calm down." Now it has been offered in a serious wau again, at a time when both parties are under a great deal of pressure to come to an agreement (thanks to the sequester, which was another very ill-conceived move by the President)f. Now we're in the position of having to hope like hell Republicans don't suddenly wake up and realize they're being offered something they've wanted all along. But hey, you say, don't panic. Well, I have news for you: if we DON'T panic now, and raise the alarm big time, and it turns out the Obama apologists were right, then the worst that will happen is that we will have gotten upset for nothing. On the other hand, if those of us who are really concerned about this turn out to be right, and if we follow your advice the thing will be a done deal and there won't be a damned thing any of us can do about it at that point. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a time for complacency merely in the service of not offending one another.

[Sunlei]

72. well it is a negotiating tactic, go look at the presidents website. It's not just plain old consumer

index chaining..stand alone. There are exemptions for the least wealthy. There are provisions where persons like romney would no longer get their guaranteed ss check.

Of course you stand up and make yourself heard. Personally, I along with many others hated Salazar for many reasons I don't care to get into. It took years to get that man to 'retire'. Thousands of hours by thousands of people.

[markpkessinger]

73. I guess Bernie Sanders doesn't understand political negotiating either . . .

. . . because after his meeting with the President last week, he said the President was intent on keeping chained CPI as part of any bargain that was reached.

[Sunlei]

107. That's what he said, the consumer price index is part of any bargain.

good thing ss is a solvent fund to 2034? I forget. They can do nothing and everything will be ok.

[madville]

191. I would be able to collect in 2040

Guess it's ok that I'm pretty much screwed if we do nothing. They will have to raise the income cap and I'm betting probably raise the eligibility age and contribution percentage somewhere along the way. Insolvency is projected for 2033 as of the last report.

[Sunlei]

196. hopefully you can manage to save a bit untill 2040 and not have to survive only on a ss check.

I'm more worried about local taxes and fees like property tax, association fees and permit fees. Around here in a middleclass area thats about $40,000 over 10 years. Then the state takes that 40k and hands it over to the private prisons to house 2 inmates for one year.

[senseandsensibility]

43. Apologize? They're still saying it.

[markpkessinger]

47. True that! n/t

[WillyT]

46. K & R !!!

[Doctor_J]

51. They've gotten really angry and desperate too

Yesterday we were told, "everyone who opposes the cuts is just hiding behind poor people".

[KG]

54. really? missed that one.

[Doctor_J]

58. Read and enjoy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251297857

[neverforget]

132. Sweet Jesus Almighty. Let me see if I get this straight. In order to protect the poor, we can't

defend the poor because that would be hiding behind the poor?

[Doctor_J]

165. When I read posts like that, accusing Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson

and Sherrod Brown and MoveOn and the Progressive Caucus of "hiding behind the poor" in order to justify Obama's atrocious policy AND political decisions, I realize that the party I have been voting for for almost 40 years is doomed. Or I guess it's already dead. They have completely lost their collective soul. They are willing to sign on to, literally, anything that Obama proposes. In a way they're worse than the Teabaggers and Repukes. At least the Repukes' rejection of reality can be traced directly back to the propaganda onslaught waged for the last 20 years.

Anyway the Dem party still has some honest and honorable people in it, unlike the other party. But the honest ones are being run out by the president and his minions.

[neverforget]

171. It makes me frustrated to know that people are willing to sell out principles

because the leader said so.

[pa28]

155. I had to break out the hip waders to navigate that bullshit. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

177. There's a similarity between the writing style

of that poster and of one of DU's mainstays.

I would hate to think that someone would use a sock puppet account to manage opinion on this site.

It would fill me with a profound sense of disappointment.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

102. "...I wonder whether or not they actually give a shit about children."

This one's a classic, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022621891

Pitting seniors against "the children." Tsk.

[MisterP]

253. last week's talking point was "drones are a white thing to worry about"

[Warpy]

53. He might just be toying with the Republicans

because he knows damned full well they will never do anything he proposes.

However, it's a dangerous game. If it's something that is vital to them (and the destruction of Social Security is at the very core of their being), they might just take him up on it one day.

He needs to stop before he discredits himself completely.

[CountAllVotes]

57. It is a cruel ugly game

and no, I don't like in one damn bit.

If this is how low he must stoop to get what he *thinks* he wants, well it is not going to happen ever.

He has committed political suicide by doing this. I wonder if he has realized it *yet*.

[socialist_n_TN]

143. What was it bvar posted? "Daddy's gambling with the rent money again.".....

EVEN IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO, that this is some Nth Dimensional Chess move, it's a VERY dangerous one just in case the Republicans come to their senses (as you said). In addition, this puts the whole Democratic Party on the hook for his gamble with the rent money.

[CTyankee]

211. It's nutty. I simply cannot see the upside to this for him. It's lose-lose.

[Skraxx]

216. The Risk Is His To Take, That's How You Use Political Capital

I see a method to the madness. And it is a risk. Obama does that sort of thing.

Think about the dynamics this sets up:

Obama is has now taken the GOP mantle of Benefit cuts UPON himself. The GOP is no longer in charge of that side of the debate. Obama is.

What if local congressional democrats take up the mantle of protecting SS? Do you think a southern, white male (for example) might have an easier time voting for a Democrat for Congress in '14 if he was OPPOSING Obama on SS cuts and made that a big issue in his campaign? The dynamic allows for local candidates to run against Obama on something. Obama haters in the middle might find themselves more able to vote for a Dem locally if he's opposing the President on something.

There's NO reason this should tar any other Democrat other than Obama. In fact, it could be used to MOTIVATE our side to the polls if our local Dem candidates took up the mantle of protecting SS from Obama and the GOP.

What does OBAMA have to lose? Nothing really. He just has to withstand the heat.

Would you be more or less likely and motivated to vote in '14 if your local Dem was running to protect SS from big bad Obama and the GOP?

Think about it.

[jonthebru]

69. I have two suggestions:

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

movetoamend.org

anticorruptionact.org

We can bicker about who, what, why, where, but push comes to shove the rich have it tied up and the rest of us 60 to 80% will have to scramble for a part of the 20% they are leaving behind. Almost every issue gets down to campaign money fraud and lobbyist corruption of elected Federal Legislators.

Find an economist who thinks this latest gambit is a good thing and you will find a corrupt, bought person.

Face it, we were sold a bill of goods and most of us bought it. Now we must unbuy it. Don't be a mindless consumer and teach your children not to be. If the rich don't care if the middle class are financially healthy then we as individuals must not be concerned about the health of the rich.

Plant a garden.
Here is an article that reaches my point.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/alec-sponsored-bill-repeal-north-carolinas-renewable-energy-standard-narrowly-passes-out

[truedelphi]

110. + 1. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

71. please don't hold yer breath for that apology. nt

[markpkessinger]

81. I'm not really n/t

[Honeycombe8]

76. Like who? I don't recall reading such posts. Link, please?

I do recall seeing posts stating that the proposal (from December'12) wouldn't get accepted by the Republicans because it had an open-ended provision stating that they would pass some (unidentified) provision to protect the elderly. No Republican would or could accept that, just like no Democrat worth his salt would accept an open-ended provision like that.

And that warning that people were screeching too soon turned out to be true. The Republicans did not accept that proposal.

So another proposal has been made. I've seen no reference to the open-ended provision being included in this one. If it's not there, then this proposal is different.

[Kolesar]

80. Kess is just here to light a flame war...eom

[markpkessinger]

87. I have better things to do with my time than to start flame wars

I am expressing my own outrage at the President's proposal, in the hope that at least some folks might wake up from the state of denial they are in concerning what's going on with this issue.

[jazzimov]

103. Then why start them?

And why are you so concerned about other's "denial" about issues that you clearly don't understand and are in denial about?

[markpkessinger]

264. Oh, I get it . . .

. . . Only those subscribe to the infallibility of President Obama can possibly "understand" this issue. And people like Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich and Dean Baker, not to mention all on this list who feel as I do, are just a bunch of ignorant fools. How arrogant!

[ISW]

86. I looks like a fillibuster by Bernie might be our only hope.

[truedelphi]

111. Welcome to DU. n/t

[Iggo]

88. Yeah, but what if Hitler won WWII?

Then you'd be talkin out of the other side of your face, eh comrade?

[mike_c]

93. seriously....

[liberal N proud]

105. Maybe you would have like to have seen what Romney and the GOP would have done

[Hissyspit]

112. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[curlyred]

145. That's just silly

You don't really think we need to blindly follow PBO, do you? If we abhor this SS proposal, of COURSE we secretly support Repukes! That's it!

Think about how ridiculous it sounds for a minute.

[L0oniX]

181. That's right ...play good cop bad cop. n/t

[840high]

187. So tired of this old BS line.

[liberal N proud]

207. Not nearly as tired as some of us are of the constant bashing of whoever is in power

For some here, and everywhere, it makes no difference who is in control of the White House. Now that is your constitutional right to bash, but is it also my constitutional right to ask the question that maybe you would think it would have been better to have Mittens. And for being tired of this OLD LINE, it can't be too old as we voted last November, and not to call anyone out, but that is how long you have been here.

This is a Democratic Form based on the idea of supporting Democrats!

[DeSwiss]

108. K&R

- Even in ''eleventy-dimensional chess'' the Social Security piece is always clearly marked. Even Eisenhower realized that only a damned fool would screw around with SS.

[center]



[/center]

[JHB]

263. This is what happens when you bring a 3D chess set to a street brawl

Unless you crack it over someone's head, it really isn't all that effective.


Seriously, the bluff/chess/trolling gambit only works if you actively use it to draw attention to the other guy's radicalism.

Until every Democrat mentions this every time they are in front of a camera (Every. Single. Time.) there is no chess game. You have to actively make them the issue.

[DeSwiss]

272. Some try to show others how to reach the door.....

...but they have to find it and walk through it themselves.

[Hoyt]

115. For all of us of SS age, let's give up the drug coverage we got a few years ago. That'll pay for

Chained-CPI many times over.

I think we ought to just sit tight and quit griping, truthfully.

If Obama manages to get a "grand deal" that really improves things in our economy (for what is needed in the future), every one of us will be better off -- although a lot are just too short-sighted to recognize it.

[Cleita]

136. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid Hoyt.

At least it will keep your blood pressure down until the reality of the situation sinks in.

[Hoyt]

139. The reality of the global situation has sunk in. Hence, my post. Eom

[CTyankee]

150. but it doesn't make sense. Making the least pay the most and the most pay the least is

furtherance of any problems in the global situations. Humankind does not thrive on such schemes. Never has, never will (unless you are predicting dystopia).

[Hoyt]

156. Those with least have protections. Besides, we all are going to be scraping for a living

if our economic/societal issues aren't addressed soon.

In today's environment, one can't just look at a single, relatively minor, aspect of our society/economy. It's all interactive -- "global."

if we don't get things on a sustainable track, you are going to wish all that was "cut" is from a chained-cpi.

In fact, they can cut my SS in half, if they do other things that improves the cost of housing for seniors, contains Medicare costs (and let's not forget the value of the drug coverage we got just a few short years ago), helps the younger generation find jobs, improves transportation, gets us off oil, etc. -- all things that will be good for the long-term.

But dang, let's just sit here and gripe about what is a relatively insignificant "cut" over the short-run (one that is more than offset by the drug coverage, and can be changed in the future when things look a little better).

If it truly helps Obama get something that is good for all of us, I can give up a little (especially if those on lower end are protected, which I believe they are).

I'm darn sure not going to sit back and let the rethugs get the benefit of a bunch of irrational griping over something we haven't even seen yet and might be a slight cut on one hand, but something better on the other.

Sorry, that's the way I feel about it. And I've got as much stake in this as everyone else. I might be wrong, in which case I will eat dog food (don't think I could stomach cat food).

[CTyankee]

158. I worship at the altar of Paul Krugman who has a basic disagreement with you on this.

I have never seen Krugman wrong on anything, and I have read him for over 10 years. I won't even try to paraphrase him but his outlook is not nearly as pessimistic as yours if we get busy on job creation which will create more revenue.

Chained CPI assumes that the people it affects have a "basket of goods" in which they can swap out more expensive items with less expensive ones when cuts to income arrive. This ignores the fact that for seniors health care is one of those basket items that cannot be swapped out for a generic or cheaper brand, like bread in a supermarket. These cost items in the seniors' basket are inflating. Therefore it crowds out seniors' buying power in other areas of the economy where we need their spending to help fuel growth.

So while I agree with you that there are many things that need to be done, the chained CPI idea is not a good one for the basic reason stated above.

[Hoyt]

167. Did they cut our SS when drug coverage was enacted?

Will they cut it, if Accountable Care Organizations help reduce rate of increase of Medicare?

And when are we going to create some jobs? We are never going back to full employment with good jobs.

I like Krugman roo, but I doubt he has all the answers either, and he's missing the political factors if he thinks the rethugs are going to do anything for the good of people. Agree this should not be happening, but it is here and worldwide.

In any event, I don't think the chained CPI is the end world, especially in short - run and if there are truly protections for those on lower end.

[CTyankee]

197. Krugman has stated that he thinks the repubs just want to get rid of SS and Medicare and

they always have. It is their end game. So I don't think he is missing that. I haven't heard him talk about Single Payer recently, which to me is our only salvation to address the rise in medical care costs, an issue he does take very seriously, but he feels the ACA is a start.

I am not an economist, but my one course in Econ in grad school taught me a bit about what they do, and that is run mathematical models. There are some solid ideas behind his thinking, IMO.

[Hoyt]

200. Point is, we seniors have had some significant improvement s in recent years.

We will get more if economy improves.

As long as those at lower end are protected, I'm willing to give up a very slight reduction in SS if that is what it takes to push legislation through Congress that helps almost everyone - jobs, Healthcare, education, etc.

Instead, some are ready to throw Obama and other Dems in the trash by failing to look at big picture.

[CTyankee]

209. The problem with the drug benefit was that it wasn't paid for, not that it existed.

Benefits don't by their very existence spell doom. There is an obligation on our lawmakers to be responsible for making sure such benefits are funded properly.

The reason I find these types of conversations online is that for some arguing it is a question of whether we can afford adequate health care for the people of our nation. If you reduce taxes on those who are at the top but make a major expansion in costs for seniors all across the spectrum of wealth, what do you expect? To me, the answer is not denial of vitally needed health care, but a truly progressive tax code that is economically just. "Means testing" on social programs is a good way to get rid of them since they become "poverty programs" which are notoriously short-lived since the poor have inadequate representation in the halls of power. Highly progressive taxation is the way to go. Everyone pays in to have a more just economic system. Even the working poor are contributing a share of the burden through payroll taxes.

[Hoyt]

210. So. do you propose to scrap drug benefit? People howling over possible

Chained-CPI, will really have something to gripe about. Why not look at Chained-CPI as a contribution to much more significant drug benefit? Be positive.

[CTyankee]

212. The drug benefit is obviously a problem as long as we have drug companies ripping off

seniors. I am in favor of making the drug companies as competitive in pricing for seniors as they do in the VA. If we do it for one segment of health insured we should be able to do it for another. That said, of course, I'm for applying it to the population as a whole because everyone is at the mercy of these rapacious bastards. Perhaps we can achieve it piecemeal over time.

[Hoyt]

231. Making drugs competitive, should definitely be a priority.

[CTyankee]

233. so why aren't we doing for Medicare what we did for the VA?

[Hoyt]

235. Probably for same reason that some Medicare beneficiaries

raise holy hell if a doc prescribes a generic, or the old less costly standard rather than the latest new drug at 10 times the cost.. . . . . Or, a formulary for Medicare that takes into account the cost vs. efficacy of drugs. The whole health care system - including patient expectations - needs a serious overhaul. The politics of doing that are difficult as well.

Would you accept CCPI if drug costs were reduced significantly? Would others?

[CTyankee]

240. No. Because CCPI is a form of austerity and it won't work anyway, except to make older

people poorer. How then do we save SS? By raising the cap. Let's try that first. And by making the tax system MORE progressive. But I don't want to see SS or Medicare turned into a poverty program. That will kill those programs as surely as the sun rises in the East. And the RWingers know that, they just won't admit it. They know that if they cut those two programs a bit here, a bit there, the programs will become less and less popular and people will say the hell with them. Then the RW has won! Let's not help them achieve their evil goal.

There are several things I would do. I would welcome changes to Medicare to squeeze out wasteful spending on expensive procedures or drugs that have no proven efficacy. I believe we should have a gatekeeper system, whereby you must be referred to a specialist by your PCP, because in countries where the PCP is utilized more often, health care outcomes are better than here and they have better results (pretty stunning, isn't it?) I think cost vs. efficacy of drugs is a false choice. Of course, I don't want a drug that doesn't work. But I take the generic whenever possible. I agree with all the savings that Obama has made to Medicare so far.

But the handwriting is on the wall for universal health care and I hope I live long enough to see it. We have a screwy, for profit system that costs more, does less and hurts people more than other countries who have single payer.

[L0oniX]

182. "Those with least have protections" holy mind fuck. Rmoney said about the same thing. n/t

[Hoyt]

202. Obama says it every time too, yet you are ready to trash him

by failing to see the big picture and politics involved. See how you like Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum, or one of the friggin Pauls.

[L0oniX]

244. Yea ...it really pisses off the worshippers when you trash their idol.

[CTyankee]

162. what you are advocating for, in an abbreviated form, is austerity. And that is exactly

what is NOT working in Europe even as we speak. It doesn't work, Hoyt. You are advocating a variant of a dying or dead cause...

[wilsonbooks]

125. I have been wrong a few times in my life and have always

been man enough to admit it. It makes me wonder if some of the ones who are clearly wrong won't admit it because they are being paid to express those views.

[Cleita]

137. Good point. Your theory makes sense. n/t

[CTyankee]

153. Why would Obama need to do that? He will have command of huge amounts of money

when he retires from the presidency as a relatively young man. I don't see why he would sully his image and reputation like that? I would think that he would want to burnish his image as a president. After all, you can't buy immortality. However, you can establish it...

[chervilant]

133. Please,

don't hold your breath...

And, be especially sure not to mention sycophancy, or "idols with feet of clay." That will certainly get you in big trouble.

I'd stick with that "eleventy-dimensional chess" meme--surely you'll be safe with that.

(I now doubt that many of our peers understand that the corporate megalomaniacs -- who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy -- are really running the show.)

[kurtzapril4]

138. Don't hold your breath.

You left out "vomit lappers," yes, we're "vomit lappers" WHO WERE RIGHT! The schadenfreude is killing me right about now.

[bhikkhu]

144. Well, I'm very sorry to have been wrong

The one consolation is that neither side in congress will touch the proposal, and out of the whole mess something better may come. Perhaps they will raise the cap?

I don't think there is really any 3-d chess going on, but it is nice to see the repugs offered their own idea, and to have them shrink back in horror. They can't support it now without seeming to agree with Obama, so this may be the last we hear of chained cpi.

[joshcryer]

152. Consolation? That was predictable.

The problem is that Obama keeps thinking his willingness to put everything on the table is a good strategy. It's simply not. This bipartisan crap is crap. He thinks that by saying "here's my idea, it's really good, check it out, I make sacrifices, you make sacrifices, we all win" earns him political capital in the long run. Someone needs to take him aside and tell him straight up there's no political capital in being bipartisan in the second term.

[joshcryer]

148. Putting SS on the table was Obama's campaign promise.

It really was.

[slipslidingaway]

170. January 2008 before the inauguration Obama spoke of the deficit ...

and that entitlements would play a large role (maybe even the largest role) in cutting the deficit.

[DURHAM D]

175. Yes it was.

[DURHAM D]

176. Remember this -

Sushing the Baby Boomers

"THE time has come, Senator Barack Obama says, for the baby boomers to get over themselves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html?pagewanted=all

[MannyGoldstein]

186. Link or slink. nt

[joshcryer]

190. Link:

Stephanopolous: You've also said that with Social Security everything should be on the table.

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?

Obama: Everything should be on the table.

Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?

Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/clinton_obama_and_the_social_s.html

Of course, Obama supports raising the cap: http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/21/obama-re-endorses-raising-social-security-payroll-tax-cap/

But he's a super bipartisan compromiser and wants everyone to come to the table and hold hands and cheer each other on and have a big love fest.

[MannyGoldstein]

224. Well #$%^ me.

Good catch. I didn't hear him yammer about the need to go after Social Security until a month before his first inauguration.

Of course, CandidateObama also widely advertised that he would not do those things.

Amazing.

[rucky]

149. I didn't say he'd never propose it

but it did say it would never pass. I still say it'll never pass.

[customerserviceguy]

159. I've been saying he's going to do this for months

And I've also made the case that it's not that much of a difference over the remaining life of the average retiree. The biggest reason their costs go up somewhat faster than regular inflation is because of medical inflation being so very much higher than the average increase in prices. We need to really get a handle on that for everybody's sake.

[uriel1972]

173. To say...

"At least he's not Romney" is setting the bar low.

What's next, "At least he's not Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao." How low do we go?

Wouldn't it be great if we could say, "He's better than JFK or FDR." and mean it.

[rury]

174. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to apolgize.

You'll turn blue in the face and pass out.
Racist Republikkkans who control the House refuse to work with President Obama and this is what he has to do to move forward.
Now I don't like the chained CPI, either. But I know that it is just a bargaining chip.
And it will never come to pass because the Greedy Old Party will not agree to the increased revenue (tax increase on and end of loopholes for the uber rich.)
Without the tax hike on multimillionnaires and billionaires, Obama will yank the chained CPI off of the table. He has made that clear!!
I support President Obama and after seeing how this first black president has been opposed and treated, I seriously doubt that I will ever wave a flag or feel proud of this country again!!

[TiberiusB]

189. Explain how this helps

What is his end game? Is this all just to show everyone how implacable the GOP is? How is that news to anyone? Does it help anyone in the real world? Does it end the sequester and all the damage it's doing? Why does Obama feel compelled to make it clear that he agrees with the beltway wisdom that seniors and the poor have it too good? People are likely literally dying thanks to the sequester (and that's only if you look at the cuts to cancer treatment programs). The chained CPI does nothing to help the debt except excuse the government from paying down its Treasury obligations by simply writing off billions in interest on the backs of the disabled and the elderly.

Which is, of course, the plan.

Nobody wants to pay for the Ponzi scheme Reagan and Greenspan established back in the 1980's that took the increased FICA taxes and raised retirement age and combined them to create a huge fund for Treasury Bonds. SS isn't part of the regular budget, but Treasury Bonds sure are. That's how Reagan managed to slow the explosion of debt under his leadership. He simply used all those Treasury Bonds to mask a chunk of the damage he was doing.

I imagine that scheme can't go on forever, though, not with 2 trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich and multiple unfunded wars being fought. We are just going to have to figure out some new way to stick it to the needy.

Oh, hi there, Chained CPI!

[sendero]

205. That's a theory..

... that the whole exercise is designed to show how "reasonable" Obama is compared to the other guys. Problem is THERE IS NOBODY WATCHING THE SHOW. Americans have already given up on politics. I'll bet if you went downtown and asked 10 random people about this situation no more than 2 of them could explain it it any level of detail (what is proposed, what it means).

The country is descending into the abyss because "good Americans" are too busy doing other things to pay attention to what their "leaders" are up to.

I gave up on Obama being the progressive he campaigned as the day it became clear that health care reform was a cruel joke where the people get something but the predator corporations get most of of the gain. That is the mode Obama operates in and folks can call me firebagger or whatever, I call them idiot.

At the time Obama took office we needed a 180-degree course-correction. We needed an FDR or a LBJ or a JFK. We got a man too afraid of pissing off the opposition to do anything valuable.

[saidsimplesimon]

261. Tiberius, just when I begin to think my classical education

was a waste of time. "Another day, another crime against humanity"

[Summer Hathaway]

184. Where are the apologies

from those who swore that Obama would NEVER sign the the repeal of DADT?

Never did hear much from them after the fact - in the same way we never hear from those who predicted Obama would do all kinds of things he never did.

They never acknowledge their Nostradumbass predictions gone wrong - except for the odd poster claiming victory because it was THEIR DU post that forced the President to abandon his course of action and acquiesce to their better judgment.

[Occulus]

246. Obama gets no credit for that.

The only reason- the only reason- he did so was because of the efforts of people like Dan Choi, who dragged Obama to that altar almost literally kicking and screaming. The "hair on fire" types MADE him do that, and they get all of the credit for it.

[AtomicKitten]

260. No credit for repealing DADT?

He promised to do it while campaigning and called for it in the SOTU address (below), putting the repeal into motion. He never intended to do it by an executive order that could be overturned by a subsequent president. He intended to repeal the law ... and he did it.

Anger over his budget that calls for CPI changes as odious as that is does not give you license to discredit his accomplishments.

[Occulus]

265. No, he never *intended* to do it AT ALL.

He was forced into doing to, forced into making that promise, and forced into signing the repeal by people more moral, more courageous, and more determined than he himself ever was or ever will be.

Without the efforts of people like Choi and other GLBTs that demanded it, DADT would be policy to this very day.

Obama would have preferred to do nothing about it. He gets no credit for making a decision in which he had no politically acceptable choice but to do.

No points. Sorry.

[AtomicKitten]

267. FFS. That is complete and utter nonsense.

[Occulus]

269. It was the consensus at the time

and I know for a fact the GLBTs I know are more than well-aware of that fact.

You can try to rewrite history as much as you like, but the fact remains that repealing DADT was never something he was particularly enthusiastic about. He was forced into it, he was forced by those who were affected by it, and without those efforts to force his hand he would never have done it.

No points, no credit, and a very very big MINUS score for subjecting it to a survey.

[AtomicKitten]

270. I assure you the majority of the LGBT community

are thrilled and grateful he got it done.

Your bitter refusal to see it clearly seems to be rooted in a need to micromanage and condemn him every step of the way. They don't call it sausage-making for nothing. When he was asked why he didn't do this or say that along he way, he answered it was to get the votes he needed to repeal the law. That's where your surveys and other extraneous bullshit came in. He got it done. Go ahead and be happy about it.

[Summer Hathaway]

273. ...

[GoneFishin]

254. DADT doesn't take substantial money away from the 1%. It is fluff.

It is the Democrat's version of the Republican's prayer in school show. No money involved.
Let me see BO put some banksters in jail then I'll think differently.

[OldDem2012]

195. Yawn. Let me know when legislation of this kind hits the President's desk for signature...

....Demanding apologies for something that will never happen? Really?? LOL!

[blkmusclmachine]

206. I always assume the pom pom brigade is writing from the WH basement.

[Skraxx]

213. If Obama REALLY Wants These Cuts To Happen, WHY Is He Demanding Tax Hikes Too?

If the cuts are what he really wants, why not just say fuck it and work with the GOP and enact cuts? Why doesn't he just do that? I'm sure he could swing a few Dems as well to give it a nice bipartisany feel.

So, why doesn't he just do that if he's so hell bent on fucking over grandma?

Anyone?

[CTyankee]

214. good question. My "guess" is that he anticipated Boehner's reply which was basically

"it ain't enough but hand it over anyway. even so, we won't deal until you do more."

I think Obama figured that public opinion would be focused on Boehner and the repubs intransigence. Instead, he got the attacks leveled at him as well. I don't know why he reasoned that folks wouldn't figure out that even offering such a deal was a betrayal. Some lunkhead in his WH must've dreamed it up...

[Skraxx]

217. There's A Dynamic and Positioning Playing Out That People Are Missing

The Risk Is His To Take, That's How You Use Political Capital

I see a method to the madness. And it is a risk. Obama does that sort of thing.

Think about the dynamics this sets up:

Obama is has now taken the GOP mantle of Benefit cuts UPON himself. The GOP is no longer in charge of that side of the debate. Obama is.

What if local congressional democrats take up the mantle of protecting SS? Do you think a southern, white male (for example) might have an easier time voting for a Democrat for Congress in '14 if he was OPPOSING Obama on SS cuts and made that a big issue in his campaign? The dynamic allows for local candidates to run against Obama on something. Obama haters in the middle might find themselves more able to vote for a Dem locally if he's opposing the President on something.

There's NO reason this should tar any other Democrat other than Obama. In fact, it could be used to MOTIVATE our side to the polls if our local Dem candidates took up the mantle of protecting SS from Obama and the GOP.

What does OBAMA have to lose? Nothing really. He just has to withstand the heat.

Would you be more or less likely and motivated to vote in '14 if your local Dem was running to protect SS from big bad Obama and the GOP?

Think about it.

[CTyankee]

219. An intriguing hypothesis, Skraxx!

If it produced such a endgame, it might work the way you see it. But you ask what would Obama have to lose. Well, for one thing, second term presidents usually spend time burnishing their image, not destroying it, for posterity. But I can suppose that he would "sacrifice" his image in the history books to accomplish something more sweeping: a more progressive social agenda in this country. Maybe.

My rep is already a strong member of the Progressive Caucus so I have a bit of a luxury here. But elsewhere in the country will be interesting. The question I have for you is: do you think this issue will trump the prejudice and fear of Dems in the reddest districts in the country over just this one issue?

You may be right and in that case it would be a good outcome. Lots of "ifs" in my mind, however.

[Skraxx]

220. It's His Sacrifice To Make However I Think He Sees The Splintering of the GOP to be a Worthy Endgame

If you see THAT as the endgame, and I do. I think he wants nothing less than that, and he's willing to take the hit to his image, short term, to accomplish that.

If we take back the House in '14, that could very well spell the end of the GOP as we know it. They are well on their way towards splintering already.

[CTyankee]

221. think this thing out, tho. Does SS preservation trump all the social issues in these red

districts? Does it trump gun rights there, also? How about abortion?

I would NEVER vote for anyone who is anti-choice, for instance. And people on the hard right feel the same way on the other side. So are you going to get a "progressive" who will only be so on the issue of SS? The repubs would figure that game out pretty fast, it seems to me, and focus completely on the "progressive's" views on social issues, plus trotting out the old "cut SS to save SS" crap, to make it seem not so bad.

A real gamble...

[Skraxx]

223. It Doesn't Have To Trump Everything in Red Districts

It's NOT just about red states, that was just an example.

There's a range of wedge issues that congressional Dems now have. We KNOW the game is all about turnout in mid-terms, right?

So, you have your buffet of issues a local Dem candidate can choose from to run in his district.

Down south, your local Dem in a read area can run against Obama on SS, and keep silent about guns. It may or may not work, but it gives him SOMETHING where before, because of the Obama hatred, he would have had even less. Now, he can pick up SOME of those anti-obama votes by being anti-Obama on SS cuts.

In the N.E. you can run against SS cuts, gun responsibility and equality, etc.

You can tailor your wedge issue, there' s so many currently available. Every little bit helps in '14. We need to make inroads in red states, and this strategy will give Dem candidates an edge in red states, by being anti-Obama on something, that could swing SOME voters there way.

[CTyankee]

225. It seems to me that our big problem in taking back the House is because of redistricting.

And those red disricts have a majority of people voting for those "values." I guess it is worth a shot at getting some of them to vote their Obama hatred, but you still have the problem if the local Dem wins, goes to Congress and votes for a woman's right to choose. Worse, if he gives in and votes against a woman's right to choose in order to save his seat for the Dems on SS. What have you gained?

[Orsino]

242. He knows that Our grandparents are getting fucked already...

...and that they'll be fucked even harder by any deal that is possible in the current Congress. What the prez is proposing is still better than what we'll get.

I just wish he'd shut his fucking mouth about entitlement cuts, and let those proposals come only from the GOP. He is just asking for the cuts to be named after him in every 2014 Republican campaign ad.

[JoePhilly]

226. So you mean he's going to CAVE and make the deal this time ... right?

That's been the prediction for about 4 years now ... every time there has been ANY negotiation.

This is it!! Here it comes!! Obama is going to CAVE and make a deal to cut Social Security.

Debt ceiling (both times), Bush tax cuts (both times), sequester, fiscal cliff ... and at least 4 or 5 other times that I've lost count of.

As I have said before. It has not happened. Its not happening now. And it won't happen next time.

And my prediction is that, after this instance passes, DU will take a brief outrage break, and then burst into flames again during the next negotiation, with the same imminent predictions of doom.

[eilen]

238. It really burns my ass that I have to rely on Republican intransigence to preserve SS. nt

[Larrylarry]

239. The chained CPI is off the table

The Pres. could suggest eliminating Social Security completely and if the bill contains tax increases it would still be killed by the house

Claiming that chain CBI is actually on the table implies that you believe there's a chance the house will pass a bill with tax increases
Simply not going to happen

[PolitFreak]

241. A sad K&R

[stupidicus]

243. Don't hold your breath -- they are frozen in a state of righteousness

which is why they selectively forget about where this debate started -- with silly claims he'd never ever propose it, and then onto moving the goal post with the "chess" etc, BS after he did.

Given that he's explicitly expressed a "willingness" to do exactly what he's proposed, I suppose that too is part of the "Grand Bluff", as opposed to just rank lying on his part for which no diminishment of him occurs.

That would simply mean that they've adopted the "the ends justify the means" rationale behind all the profuse lying and rightwingnut liars that have elevated it to an art form in the last few decades.

And all the stress, tension, and discord he's created in the lefty masses over this is justified on the same basis no doubt. Imagine where we'd be if he started a "Just say no!" to such campaign from his bully pulpit instead.

Let's face it -- those you wrote about are the functional lefty equivalents of the Bushbots they likely bashed for eight years on the same grounds. One doesn't need to be an ODS-sufferer or Obama-hater to criticize him over his words or deeds.

end of story

[AtomicKitten]

262. As I understood it, the argument was that

it would never happen, not that it would not be proposed.

Still, even knowing the GOP would reject the proposal is bare comfort.

[QC]

274. KICK!