Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

patrice

(47,992 posts)
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:54 AM Apr 2013

I would like to hear your ideas on why my REPUBLICAN Senators oppose Chained CPI.

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

How is it that DU is in the same position on this issue as my anti-women, anti-LGBT Civil Right to marry, anti-cannabis legalization, anti-environment, anti-Labor, anti-Education, anti-alternative energy, anti-student loan abatement, redder than red state senators? I'd like to see your answers as to what that might mean, please.

Do you really think that none of that other stuff will be affected by weakening the President and Congress?

You have a right to your thoughts and ideas and how you vote, but PUBLICLY proclaiming your intentions to damage the whole Democratic agenda (including things like the Progressive Caucus budget) only tells those who do not have your benefit at heart that all they have to do is wait and you will do their work for them. How long do you have? You may very well be speaking against your own interests. You may very well be insuring that the Chained CPI will succeed. If you think you have no part in that, you're either mistaken or not honest.

I'm sure that Senator Roberts of Kansas appreciates your help on this issue; I hope you are grateful for what he uses that political capital you're giving to him to do for you next. Look at that list of issues above and decide what you don't care about; I'm sure others are interested too.

Go ahead and rage on, even rightly so, about the Chained CPI, but let's just be straight about the whole grandstanding "3rd" party situation here, with ALL of the issues on the table. What are you willing to throw under the bus?

63 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I would like to hear your ideas on why my REPUBLICAN Senators oppose Chained CPI. (Original Post) patrice Apr 2013 OP
I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not reliant on SSI? Scootaloo Apr 2013 #1
Because a lot of seniors vote for them. nt octoberlib Apr 2013 #2
^ This loyalsister Apr 2013 #51
Summarized: "I guess you'd rather have President Palin". Marr Apr 2013 #3
To make it easier for well to do dems abelenkpe Apr 2013 #4
Obama wants it. That's plenty reason for Republicans to reject it. Kablooie Apr 2013 #5
He also tied it to tax hikes and loophole closures for the wealthy. GoCubsGo Apr 2013 #30
Who gives a rat's ass why they rejected it? magellan Apr 2013 #6
Lawyers never ask a question that they don't already know the answer to. JoePhilly Apr 2013 #37
That's all well and good magellan Apr 2013 #62
Fickle bunch nt lillypaddle Apr 2013 #7
Wait! Do I have this right? Bonobo Apr 2013 #8
By joe, I think you've got it! caseymoz Apr 2013 #11
That does seem to be the gist of the OP JHB Apr 2013 #18
It's so surreal it's like they're doing some kind of mind control experiment. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #21
Wabbit season! Duck season! Wabbit season! Duck season! Chef Eric Apr 2013 #22
Elmer Season! n2doc Apr 2013 #31
Exactwee. nt Chef Eric Apr 2013 #49
Politics trumps self-interest.. Junkdrawer Apr 2013 #23
No, you don't have it. I'm asking you what price you are willing to pay to stop Chained CPI. patrice Apr 2013 #32
I remember the same argument about same sex marriage and gay rights. Bonobo Apr 2013 #33
How about this -- Leave SS benefits alone for now and... Armstead Apr 2013 #35
Because it's highly unpopular among seniors of both parties (the most likely voters in 2014)? eridani Apr 2013 #9
Can we have the actual names of these Senators? eridani Apr 2013 #63
Damage the Democratic agenda? caseymoz Apr 2013 #10
Anything Obama is for, they're against. eShirl Apr 2013 #12
" including things like the Progressive Caucus budget" UnrepentantLiberal Apr 2013 #13
Are you saying the Progressive Caucus budget proposed chained CPI for SS increases? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #14
No, I'm not saying that about the Progressive budget. I'm asking people what price they're patrice Apr 2013 #34
The problem is that Obama has been pushing for chained CPI more than Republicans muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #46
It appears that for some of you it is a cult thing. aandegoons Apr 2013 #15
"need to be"? Not even I am saying people should be anti-NEED, so yours is a divide and conquer patrice Apr 2013 #38
Absurd. Marr Apr 2013 #52
I am so sick and tired of the Obamapoligists trying to justify every thing this president does bowens43 Apr 2013 #16
So say now what price you are willing to pay to stop CPI, so that when that price comes due you patrice Apr 2013 #44
Wait-- I thought this was an offer they would never, ever accept, and that's why he proposed it? Marr Apr 2013 #54
For the same reason Pelosi nixed it Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #17
I acknowledge that. I'm asking what price are people willing to pay to stop it. patrice Apr 2013 #42
I've read much nonsense on DU, but that takes the cake. Up is down, wrong is right!!!! Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #50
Uh, politics. And guess what my pro-women, pro-LGBT, pro-environment cali Apr 2013 #19
I asked what PRICE people are willing to pay to stop it. I agree with Sen. Sanders ALL of the time, patrice Apr 2013 #43
Upon what do you base this theory that there is some negotiated exchange that ends GOP hostage Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #57
Chained CPI increases taxes. bornskeptic Apr 2013 #20
You're right customerserviceguy Apr 2013 #28
It is not the chained CPI that they oppose quaker bill Apr 2013 #24
That's a nice succinct answer. JoePhilly Apr 2013 #36
Because even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. alarimer Apr 2013 #25
you're right! the elderly and disabled living on low fixed incomes and those who care about them Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #26
Agree. Trashing Obama and other Dems doesn't do us a lot of good. Hoyt Apr 2013 #27
So right! It is the duty of the Party member to accept the decisions made by the leader and to Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #29
LMAO n/t L0oniX Apr 2013 #41
Mis-characterizing what is said is proof positive that you have other agendas under the table. patrice Apr 2013 #47
Your OP is crafted out of mis-characterizations and other rhetorical foolishness Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #53
Well said. /nt Marr Apr 2013 #56
other agenda's? My only agenda is to defend the Party and the leader. For he who finds fault with Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #60
Serious, non partisan answer nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #39
I dunno. I'm a senior on Social Security and over the years I got addicted to eating Cleita Apr 2013 #40
I don't see 1 person saying "It's negotiation, so I will give ________ to stop Chained CPI" ... does patrice Apr 2013 #45
Yeah, that's because the Republicans did not ask for it, Obama offered it. Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #55
Name your price, All, so we know whom to take seriously and whom to ignore on the NEXT patrice Apr 2013 #48
Who is this 'we' you speak for? Or is it merely the humility of the royal 'we'? Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #58
I don't want to throw my state's Democratic Party Platform under the bus suffragette Apr 2013 #59
because the President suggested it. they will do NOTHING he suggests. period. never. ever. spanone Apr 2013 #61

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
51. ^ This
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:15 PM
Apr 2013

It's the only voting bloc they have maintained... soon more and more white men will be on SS as the baby boomers age.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
3. Summarized: "I guess you'd rather have President Palin".
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:07 AM
Apr 2013

Yeah, I don't think this shit is going to sell very well, but good luck in 2014.

GoCubsGo

(32,061 posts)
30. He also tied it to tax hikes and loophole closures for the wealthy.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:03 AM
Apr 2013

Had he not done that, they'd be all over it.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
6. Who gives a rat's ass why they rejected it?
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:53 AM
Apr 2013

The point is, it shouldn't be put out there FOR them to reject.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
37. Lawyers never ask a question that they don't already know the answer to.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:33 AM
Apr 2013

And you don't make a proposal in politics unless you already know how the other side will respond.

magellan

(13,257 posts)
62. That's all well and good
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:27 PM
Apr 2013

Except most Americans aren't lawyers or politicians, and don't see this as the clever "gotcha" you and others want to think it is. They already know the Repubs do nothing but obstruct while countering with the same failed policies. In offering cuts via Chained CPI - AGAIN - all Obama has accomplished is to make the Repubs look like the ones who are in touch with Americans on this very sensitive matter.

Angry Americans from both parties demanding their reps oppose Obama's offer to cut benefits...How anyone could see this as a political masterstroke for the Dems is beyond me.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
8. Wait! Do I have this right?
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:15 AM
Apr 2013

Obama takes a Republican stance, forcing the Republicans to take a Democratic stance and now YOU are telling us that since the Republicans are for a Democratic stance, WE should take the Republican stance to support our Democratic Party???


Jeez, my head is spinning...

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
11. By joe, I think you've got it!
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:18 AM
Apr 2013

That's exactly what she's saying. We can't afford to be outflanked!

JHB

(37,131 posts)
18. That does seem to be the gist of the OP
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:17 AM
Apr 2013

It's not as if this is an obscure issue where there is little information to decide it on its own merits.

Chef Eric

(1,024 posts)
22. Wabbit season! Duck season! Wabbit season! Duck season!
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:37 AM
Apr 2013

The only problem is that the guns get pointed at us.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
33. I remember the same argument about same sex marriage and gay rights.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:12 AM
Apr 2013

"It will cost us the election, guys!!!! Is it worth it??"

Blech.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
35. How about this -- Leave SS benefits alone for now and...
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:27 AM
Apr 2013

...Push to raise the cap on the upper limit that is taxed for SS.

The current rates are already regressive because they hit moderate incomes much harder as a percentage of overall earnings.

If the well-off paid just a little more it would bring in more money, make the system fairer. They don't have to be painful drastic increases -- just make a little bit more of the amount that is currently over the cap subject to SS taxes for those who can afford a slight increase.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
9. Because it's highly unpopular among seniors of both parties (the most likely voters in 2014)?
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:16 AM
Apr 2013

Being against a highly unpopular policy is a great way to get re-elected.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/new_poll_shows_many_hate_chained_cpi/
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

eridani

(51,907 posts)
63. Can we have the actual names of these Senators?
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 04:17 AM
Apr 2013

Plus links? I'm asking because I want to send the info to my state Dem congressional delegation as a warning of what they will be up against in 2014 should they be foolish enough to support chaiend CPI.

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
10. Damage the Democratic agenda?
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:16 AM
Apr 2013

It's not like Obama is standing for re-election again, and it's his name that's attached to this disaster. I think damage to the Democratic agenda will stop with him.

Republicans don't "like" Chained CPI for any other reason except it's offered as a deal for raising taxes. Since they aren't going to raise taxes under any circumstances, they might as well come out and say they're against Chained CPI rather than suffer political damage they can avoid. In other words, their opposition isn't real in any sense. It's a wise political posture.

No, I really think opposing Chained CPI is not going to damage any of that other stuff. What will truly damage the Democrats is if they vote for Chaines CPI. That would be damaging. You can expect rock bottom turnout from Democrats in 2014 if House Democrats embrace it.

Here's the best we can hope for: the current deadlock lock on the sequester breaks decisively against the Repubs in 2014. The cuts are undercutting too many of Republican supporters in the lower classes and the upper age group. Those voters are going to be a lot more open to voting Democratic. In the meantime, though, the Dems can't give away the store. Enacting CCPI will lose the dems more votes than they will gain.

I want to add though that Obama's offer seems like bullshit to me. Democrats in Congress aren't going for Chained CPI. Even if enough Repubs don't see it in their political interest to turn down Chained CPI, the dems in the Senate will certainly block it. So, Obama shouldn't really be the one negotiating now. That's up to the Dems in Congress.

So, I don't know what the hell he's doing.

 

UnrepentantLiberal

(11,700 posts)
13. " including things like the Progressive Caucus budget"
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:41 AM
Apr 2013

Are you being humorous? That's what SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUSHED by Obama. Maybe your Republican senators know which way the wind is blowing. They want to be reelected and can see how unpopular cutting Social Security really is.

As far as 2014? Obama did this, not us. You can keep calling us liars and say we didn't spend our time and money working to get him elected in 2008 for all the good that will do you.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
14. Are you saying the Progressive Caucus budget proposed chained CPI for SS increases?
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:47 AM
Apr 2013

Because that's not what they say: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/press-releases/progressive-caucus-stands-against-chained-cpi/

Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also criticized the chained-CPI proposal, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could raise $124 billion in revenue and cut the deficit by $216 billion over a 10-year period.

In a joint statement, Grijalva and Ellison said that Obama was adopting what was essentially a Republican viewpoint toward entitlement programs.

"Republicans have been trying to dismantle Social Security ever since President Roosevelt proposed it during the Great Depression," they wrote. "We should not try to bargain for their good will with policies that hurt our seniors, especially since they’ve been unwilling to reduce tax loopholes for millionaires and wealthy corporations by so much as a dime."

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released his own similar statement decrying the proposal.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chained-cpi-social-security-cuts-obama-budget-liberals-move-on-aarp-2013-4


As for why your senator opposes chained CPI, why don't you ask him?

What is 'the whole grandstanding "3rd" party situation here'? That phrase makes no sense, to me.

'What are you willing to throw under the bus?' The main message of your OP seems to be "throw chained CPI under the bus, because Obama has proposed it, and Roberts is against it; it doesn't matter what the rest of the Democratic party thinks, or the individual thinks. Why are you insisting on something being thrown under the bus?

patrice

(47,992 posts)
34. No, I'm not saying that about the Progressive budget. I'm asking people what price they're
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:21 AM
Apr 2013

willing to pay to stop CPI.

That and I'm trying to point out that all of the anti-Democratic parades only make it more likely that whatever a person's main issues are, the more people yell about their intentions to abandon Democratic positions, i.e. not vote, the much more likely that they are defeating themselves on their own issues. Even though we have to use them to make some sense of this, let's just screw party labels and understand that, with all of the grandstanding, WHOEVER opposes what I/you/we need knows all they have to do is wait - AND - looking at the issue list above, that's multiple factions right now. Telling people what you will do and what you won't do, ESPECIALLY advertising how you will vote or not vote guarantees DEFEAT ON ONE'S OWN ISSUES. We're throwing away what little power we have left here, by telling all of those ANTI-s I listed above that all they have to do is wait and the whole thing will fall in their laps.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
46. The problem is that Obama has been pushing for chained CPI more than Republicans
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:57 AM
Apr 2013

so it's hard to see anything significant being conceded by the Republicans to him for it. It's the kind of thing they like, in general, but I haven't seen it as a core policy of theirs. What makes you think they'll allow some major Democratic policy through in return for it? And what makes you think that it wouldn't be blamed on Democrats in general, since Obama is the most prominent Democrat, when it comes to election time, and people want to know why the real value of social security is going to shrivel?

aandegoons

(473 posts)
15. It appears that for some of you it is a cult thing.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:58 AM
Apr 2013

Circular logic justifying just about anything is one of the signs you are susceptible to cult thinking.

I am guessing you are pro war, pro drone, anti tax, among others when you need to be? And when you need not to be, you are against those same things?

patrice

(47,992 posts)
38. "need to be"? Not even I am saying people should be anti-NEED, so yours is a divide and conquer
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:34 AM
Apr 2013

position.

Threatening politicians (anywhere except with another candidate/campaign and in the voting booth) turns you into an expendable resource. I'm sorry it's that way, but pretending it isn't just keeps Liberal politics and issues on the outside.

Once your vote relative to a specific issue becomes a KNOWN quantity, it becomes part of what happens on OTHER issues and the issue that motivates your vote, or non-vote, become secondary, NOT the determining issue one might think it is by using it as a threat.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
52. Absurd.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:18 PM
Apr 2013

The public's position-- not just Democrats, but the public in general-- on Social Security cuts has been known for a long time, and it's done us a lot of good. We're against it. Strongly.

You're basically saying that a complete lack of principle makes for political expediency. While I expect that's true, I am not a politician and I'm not willing to sacrifice my own future or those of my family and friends for some political hack's convenience.

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
16. I am so sick and tired of the Obamapoligists trying to justify every thing this president does
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:09 AM
Apr 2013

You know what , if Obama does this , fuck the party, there's only one anyway.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
44. So say now what price you are willing to pay to stop CPI, so that when that price comes due you
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:45 AM
Apr 2013

don't deny YOUR part in what's happening.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
54. Wait-- I thought this was an offer they would never, ever accept, and that's why he proposed it?
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:21 PM
Apr 2013

No? Not so anymore? I mean, if it's just a bluff, then why are you talking about sacrifice for other goals?

These excuses are shifting from moment to moment.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
17. For the same reason Pelosi nixed it
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:15 AM
Apr 2013

It is a bad idea that really will not save much money and will torture the most vulnerable!

Republicans have fathers and mothers too.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
42. I acknowledge that. I'm asking what price are people willing to pay to stop it.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:39 AM
Apr 2013

We need to stop thinking that there are no consequences.

If we stop CPI that will affect other issues and, then, we'll see every kind of yelling and threatening on each and every one of those, so goes what calls itself "the Left", right out into irrelevance AGAIN.

In order to succeed, you have to win and it does not appear that winning ON THE ISSUES is the most important thing to what calls itself "the Left".

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
50. I've read much nonsense on DU, but that takes the cake. Up is down, wrong is right!!!!
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:06 PM
Apr 2013

Chained CPI is unpopular with voters in both Parties, everyone but Obama hates it. My liberal Democratic Senators oppose this fucked up policy as does my Democratic Rep.
My favorite part about your OP is that after yeas of Obama demanding bipartisanship above all, you are freaking out that your Republican Senators you elect are joining Democrats to oppose shitty policy that their constituents hate. What happened to bipartisanship being so important that Obama HAD to offer the CPI, cut the public option, fire Van Jones, and on and on and on and o and on?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
19. Uh, politics. And guess what my pro-women, pro-LGBT, pro-environment
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:32 AM
Apr 2013

etc. Senator, Bernie Sanders opposes the chained CPI as well. Surely you wouldn't for a minute class Bernie with your pig Senators, right?

Oh and the entire Progressive Caucus in the House opposes it as well. You can't be suggesting that they're in cahoots in some nefarious scheme with pukes like your Senators, right?

What a ridiculous, nonsensical op.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
43. I asked what PRICE people are willing to pay to stop it. I agree with Sen. Sanders ALL of the time,
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:44 AM
Apr 2013

but I have not heard him talk about that one yet: all of the issues, in negotiation, "this in exchange for that" - WHAT OTHER ISSUE(S) SHALL WE TAKE THE HIT ON IN ORDER TO STOP CPI . . . .

because you KNOW damn straight that if we manage to stop CPI and after that take a negative result on some other issue, everyone in here yelling about CPI will be engaging in the maximum threats over whatever that issue problem is.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
57. Upon what do you base this theory that there is some negotiated exchange that ends GOP hostage
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:36 PM
Apr 2013

taking tactics? What evidence is there that Obama gifting them with Chained CPI would result in Republicans halting their opposition to equality and to progress?
My question to you is this: how cheaply are you willing to sell off the farm? Why are you willing to offer them the farm at all, why not at least make them ask for it specifically rather than sending them the keys FedEX?

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
20. Chained CPI increases taxes.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:33 AM
Apr 2013

Most of the attention on chained CPI has focused on its effect in reducing Social Security benefits, but actually it would increase income tax collections by almost exactly the same amount over the next ten years as it reduced Social Security benefits. This is because the size of the standard deduction and personal exemption and the division points between tax brackets are adjusted based on the CPI. Under chained CPI less income would be exempted from taxation and more would be taxed at a higher rate than under the current CPI computation. Although we don't have the details of President Obama's proposal, we do know that it would have some compensation for the poorest Social Security recipients. Most likely this will mean that the tax increase produced would be appreciably larger than the reduction in Social Security payouts.
Republicans who support the president's proposal risk taking hits from both sides. Seniors, who are a big part of their base, will be angered by the benefit reduction, while the teabagger faction goes berserk over the tax increase. I've said, from the first time that the president offered to agree to chained CPI, that the Republicans would never buy it because of the tax effect.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
28. You're right
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 07:25 AM
Apr 2013

It's a stealth income tax hike, and they see that.

Also, there's got to be opposition to the President's proposal to max out the number of dollars one can have in a tax-deferred 401K or IRA. Once we establish the principle that there is a limit of $X, then we can negotiate down X, or wait till inflation makes it look like not so very much money.

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
24. It is not the chained CPI that they oppose
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 07:02 AM
Apr 2013

They oppose the increased minimum benefit. They oppose the fact that the chained CPI is not applied at lower benefit levels. They oppose that is sustains the program and does not shift it to a "defined contribution" - private account/401K model. They oppose the fact that SS would become stable without meeting their demands to destroy it or raising taxes to fund it. They oppose the fact that the proposal somewhat flattens benefit distribution by raising benefits for the poor and slightly decreasing the rate of increase in payments for the largest beneficiaries in the process.

As I will be well into the upper half of beneficiaries when I claim benefits, chained CPI will apply to me, if it becomes law. I would much prefer that we raise the income cap to continue to fund current COLAS for all beneficiaries, but do support flattening the benefit distribution by increasing the minimum, and perhaps some formula for a minimum COLA applied to the lowest benefit levels to flatten the distribution even more over time.

I have run the numbers and am pretty sure I will be able to get by living simply with my defined benefit pension and social security in a few years. Chained CPI will not help, but what Gov. Scott did to my pension will hurt more.

Republicans oppose anything that does not shift these programs to "defined contribution" models or "you are on your own" vouchers.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
36. That's a nice succinct answer.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:30 AM
Apr 2013

I'd add, that they also really can't make any deal that includes new revenues.

And I'd expand on your last point. You said ...

Republicans oppose anything that does not shift these programs to "defined contribution" models or "you are on your own" vouchers.


That point is very true. And given that, they really can't take any deal like this one because it works against their ultimate goal of destroying SS entirely. To take the deal would be to accept SS in its new form for a long time. It diminishes their ability to go after it down the road.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
25. Because even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 07:12 AM
Apr 2013

Because Republicans oppose it is not a good reason to be for it.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
26. you're right! the elderly and disabled living on low fixed incomes and those who care about them
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 07:13 AM
Apr 2013

are a bunch of progressive purist selfish, spoiled brats. It takes courage and leadership to stand up to their bullying tactics. Why don't they just sell off some of their stocks if they're having such a hard time making ends meet? I know why! They are so wrapped in their own airheaded rainbows and flower power progressive purist trip - they never even thought of that option.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
29. So right! It is the duty of the Party member to accept the decisions made by the leader and to
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 07:38 AM
Apr 2013

support those decisions and translate their meaning to the proletariat.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
47. Mis-characterizing what is said is proof positive that you have other agendas under the table.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:01 PM
Apr 2013

WHAT. ARE. THEY?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
53. Your OP is crafted out of mis-characterizations and other rhetorical foolishness
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:18 PM
Apr 2013

adding to that a bunch of McCarthyite insinuations toward others just adds more crap to your pile of gibberish laced with accusation. You are advocating for cuts to Social Security and you have the audacity to question the agenda of those opposing those cuts? Seriously? What gives you the standing to do such a thing to anyone? Just rude and uncalled for, particularly considering you are the one calling for support for cuts to social programs. You seem to be to the right of your Republican Senators, no wonder they keep getting elected!

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
60. other agenda's? My only agenda is to defend the Party and the leader. For he who finds fault with
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:52 PM
Apr 2013

leader - finds fault with the Party and he who finds fault with the Party finds fault with the People - For the Party is the vanguard of the proletariat and the leader is the organized voice of the party which is the organized voice of the masses. The people must speak freely and the reactionaries must be silenced. In this case the one schooled in the science of the dialectic clearly recognizes that if the organized will of people - the Party guided by the organized voice of the Party - the leader - has made a decision to reduce benefits - It is the People guided by their vanguard and the Party lead by the voice of the masses - the leader - who have decided to reduce benefits. Those who oppose this decisions of the people as defined by the vanguard the proletariat through the voice of the leader can only be described as enemies of the people. I congratulate you for your excellent post.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
39. Serious, non partisan answer
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:37 AM
Apr 2013

Really depends on your brand of republican.

A few...seniors vote for them, they can do math.

Others, likely your tea party types, this is not going far enough, they want to just privatize it...full stop period. This slow approach is maddening. These also tend to be the crowd that only wants to pay for defense by yemeni.

Then you have a third group that will vote against anything this commie, socialist, Marxist, fascist ...did I mention colored (they think that way) proposed it. If this guy said the sun sets in the West...well it can't be.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
40. I dunno. I'm a senior on Social Security and over the years I got addicted to eating
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:38 AM
Apr 2013

food. If I can break that bad habit, then sure I'll support their issues.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
45. I don't see 1 person saying "It's negotiation, so I will give ________ to stop Chained CPI" ... does
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:51 AM
Apr 2013

anyone here think that's even slightly interesting?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
55. Yeah, that's because the Republicans did not ask for it, Obama offered it.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:27 PM
Apr 2013

Are you suggesting we give something to Obama to get him to revoke his sweet gift to the GOP? This was his opening offer. Who are you suggesting we are negotiating with? They did not ask for this as part of a negotiation Obama offered it to them prior to negotiation.
What is it 'we' are 'getting' in return for this Chained CPI? If this is a negotiated item what did THEY give in order to get this offer from Obama? What does he expect in return? Tax hikes on all of us? Chained CPI is a tax hike in itself and also a way to limit who gets Earned Income Credits and such. If it is a gift to 'them' what are we getting that in return? A new WPA? Single Payer?

patrice

(47,992 posts)
48. Name your price, All, so we know whom to take seriously and whom to ignore on the NEXT
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:04 PM
Apr 2013

issue freak-out.

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
59. I don't want to throw my state's Democratic Party Platform under the bus
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:20 PM
Apr 2013

We work hard to send Democrats to Washington to represent us and I want them to keep doing just that.

Here are the policy stands on Social Security in the current Washington Democratic Platform. I STRONGLY SUPPORT these and I expect our representatives from our state to continue to do so as well. I have copied and pasted the pertinent policy stances along with the preceding text on the area in which they are included.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/content/platform

Economic Justice and Development
The federal government has a responsibility to stabilize the business cycle through fiscal and monetary policy. Economic justice for all is essential to the existence of a democratic society. We believe that economic development, including infrastructure, is vital to continued growth and quality of life.

We call for:
• The removal of the cap on income subject to Social Security tax,
• Economic justice on women’s issues such as social security reform, pension reform, livable wages, pay equity, job discrimination, and reproductive rights;• Spousal Social Security Benefits to be recorded as a 50/50 contribution and paid out as equal 50/50 benefits.

We oppose:
• Privatization of Social Security or reduction of benefits;s;


Human Services
Compassionate human services should be among the highest priorities of government. Governments must never abdicate their responsibilities to provide a publicly funded and managed “safety net” to help those in need. In recognition of the widespread economic hardship caused by the severe recession gripping our nation, we believe that expenditures on human services should be raised to the level where basic human needs are met. Increasing poverty and the trend toward income disparity demand recognition as national emergencies.
We oppose:
• Privatizing Social Security, reducing benefits, or raising the age for qualification;


Labor
Democrats believe organized labor is essential to the social, economic, and political health of our democracy. The tremendous improvement in the overall standard of living that occurred in the years after World War II was due to the preceding and ongoing struggles of unions and working people who fought, sacrificed, and died to gain the right to organize and bargain collectively for better working conditions and a share in economic prosperity. The decline of real wages over the past three decades, accompanied by powerful anti-union political attacks, intensifies the need for the protective efforts of a strong union movement.

We believe:
• All workers, public as well as private must participate in the government social security program.

We oppose:
• Any attempt to privatize the social security retirement system.



I have noticed that people who don't have Democratic representatives seem more likely go along with anything Obama puts forward, even when what he is proposing is, as in this case, contrary to long held Democratic principles and policies. Maybe that's due to not having the representation from your own elected officials since they are Republicans and therefore feeling you only have Obama representing your interests in Washington, DC. I get that and understand some of the intense loyalty that would would produce since he is in that sense the only "Representative" you have from your state.

But you need to understand that for many of us, we expect people in our party, including the President, to uphold the values we've fought for and supported and when he does something to undercut that, we are going to push our Representatives, who are our voice in DC, even more to continue to represent our interests, both in Congress and to the President.

Doing this is supporting the Platform in my state and that is decidedly NOT a Republican direction.





spanone

(135,635 posts)
61. because the President suggested it. they will do NOTHING he suggests. period. never. ever.
Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:58 PM
Apr 2013

he could suggest turning his office and the entire democratic senate over to republicans and they would dismiss it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I would like to hear your...