General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Chained CPI offer is a win-win-win scenario
for the GOP.
I think the potential detriment to seniors and others is pretty well discussed but I want to offer my take -- for whatever that might be worth -- on why even offering this is a bad idea for President Obama.
So the President offers to touch the third rail of American politics. One of two things will happen: the GOP will accept the offer or they won't. That seems sort of "well-duh-ish" but please bear with me.
If they accept they get what they want -- twice. First, they get a chained CPI. Second, they got a Democrat to touch the rail. That means in the future they get to say, "Yes, well, Obama did it and..." Not only does that mute future criticisms of them but it shows blocs that have traditionally voted Democratic for purposes of protecting SS no longer have a safe haven. The Democratic party can no longer boast about being the party that never touched SS except to protect it because now a chained CPI has to portrayed as protection lest President Obama be jettisoned and THAT ain't gonna happen.
If the GOP rejects the chained CPI then THEY get to claim the mantle of being the party that protected seniors and the disabled. Will that cost the Democratic party one of its core constituencies? No, but it might win the GOP enough votes and enough positive press to make a difference in key battles. We've seen more than enough critical elections turn on a few hundred votes.
If the president rescinds the offer the hue and cry will be he's just a crass gamesman who cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith. That ends-up undercutting the well-deserved complaints against GOP obstructionism.
There are many opening bids one might use as an ante but putting your Rolex on the table when the other guy put out $5 worth of chips seems a risky play with no discernible benefit. You have plenty to lose and the other guy hasn't put up enough to make the potential loss worth your risk. Even if you're sitting on 4 aces the other guy will never bid enough to justify that sort of leverage and considering how much the audience is screaming this is a stupid play with the cards he has in his hands I can't see why the GOP wouldn't call his bluff -- which is the worst case scenario.
Frankly, I don't understand it.
I know passions are pretty high but if anyone wants to offer insights WITHOUT drowning the President in a sea of vitriol I'm open to discussion. He is still our president.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
yourout
(7,524 posts)
PDittie
(8,322 posts)No one here is likely to be persuaded from their position. Perhaps we could turn the page and get Hillary Clinton on the record as to whether she supports or opposes chained CPI. A cursory Google did not clarify (for me) her position.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Granted, he's done things I question but I suppose that's the office he occupies more than his qualities as a person.
I'll admit I *want* to believe there is yet a brilliant gambit yet to be made, that there is some bid he can coax from the GOP to make this play in his favor without giving them the prize they themselves have been unable to win thus far. But I'll be honest: I lack the imagination to see it and I don't think imagination is the thing to be running on in moments such as this.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the law of average states 99 out of 100 times I will come out ahead
Maybe it's time for the silent majority (the 99% of all Democratic voters and 100% of the core Barack Obama fans) to inundate the White House switchboard to say
We firmly support and have President Obama's back 100% of the time, and back whatever it is President Obama does.
Open your windows and YELL
WE ARE GLAD AS HEAVEN PRESIDENT OBAMA YOU ARE PRESIDENT IN THIS AGE AND TIME
lark
(23,067 posts)No amount of love will change the fact that this appears to be a major betrayal of 99% of Americans. There's no way to spin this as a good thing, every alternative is bad for the Democratic party and for workers. It's just made winning in 2014 even more difficult than it was previously.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)
kentuck
(111,056 posts)Graham4anything??
City Lights
(25,171 posts)
Billy Graham
DrDan
(20,411 posts)hay rick
(7,591 posts)If she is thinking about running in 2016 she has to be aware that chained cpi is a huge polarizing issue. Endorsing it will galvanize the progressive wing of the party into looking for and supporting primary challengers. Coming out against it will make it harder for her to raise funds. In this avoidance-avoidance situation, silence is the default option.
Unfortunately for Hillary, given her background and her political identification with her husband and Barack Obama, her silence will be presumed to be consent. She can run, but she can't hide.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)The sooner we can get her on the record, the better. Same with Biden (and everyone else who intends to contend for the '16 nomination).
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)She'll wait until the polls tell her what to say.
progressoid
(49,952 posts)
"told you he was the most liberalest president ever!!"
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Whether or not this ever becomes law, and whether or not he rescinds the offer, Republican candidates in 2014 will point to a Democratic President's willingness to cut Social Security.
I completely agree with Nuclear Unicorn in #14.
eridani
(51,907 posts)It would mean that public pressure works--a very good thing.
dawg
(10,621 posts)I think the President proposed this because he thinks it would be a reasonable compromise, and that someone needs to show a willingness to budge if a deal is ever going to be made.
I disagree with him. The right has gotten much of what it wanted in the way of tax cuts to upper income folks since 2000. I don't see any sense at all in talking about benefit cuts until every single Bush tax cut has been reversed. Otherwise, we are cutting benefits, partly in order to finance the continuation of those tax cuts.
Reverse all the Bush tax cuts, wind down the wars, and come up with an adequate funding mechanism for Medicare Part D. Then, if we are still running large deficits, we can start negotiating about ways of remedying that.
But until then, any benefit cuts would just be Robin Hood in reverse.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and I cannot imagine any reasonable person of some intelligence thinking that it is a reasonable compromise.
There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for a democratic president offering to balance the budget on the backs of seniors. Social security did not create the deficit. Seniors are the most vulnerable. Damaging social security will destroy all trust in the social security system for those paying in.
He isn't just playing a very dangerous game of chicken. Once he offered social security up this time around, he made his 1% agenda clear.
JHB
(37,157 posts)They've been pushing for these changes for going on two decades now.
From January 1997:
New Democrats are delighted by the commanding Clinton-Gore victory in November -- but at the same time they can hardly hide their glee that the AFL-CIO's campaign fell short of putting the Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives. They fear and dislike "big labor," of course. But another factor may also be at work. The DLC has always cared most about presidential politics, while its congressional ties have been primarily to Southern Democrats -- and these are a fast-disappearing breed. Many Southern DLC politicians are now former members of Congress, defeated or replaced by Republicans. Not incidentally, perhaps, DLC leaders are suddenly talking about "bipartisan" solutions, above and beyond mere "party politics."
***
New Democrats are now calling for "above it all" presidential leadership focused on bipartisan coalitions in Congress. After criticizing Clinton for liberal overreaching with his failed health security plan in 1993-94, the DLC now wants the president to make top-down proposals that are just as sweeping -- but this time moving in the opposite direction, away from a strong federal government role in promoting family security.
DLC President Al From is urging Clinton to undertake a "fundamental restructuring [of] our biggest systems for delivering public benefits -- Medicare, Social Security, and public education, for openers." Similarly, Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the DLC's think tank, argues for moving Medicare and Medicaid "into the new marketplace."
Sound familiar?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)to destroy social security, leave the elderly homeless and starving, and sucker the younger generations into believing in 401Ks and IRAs in order to further enrich the 1% over the next few quarters.
Doubtless the billionaires are looking around and thinking if the asshole next door is a billionaire, I should be a trillionaire.
byeya
(2,842 posts)and a cornerstone of the Democratic Party.
As has been hammered home here and by unbiased economists, SSA has nothing whatever to do with the deficit.
The argument should not be How to cut the deficit; the argument should be Should the deficit be cut when there is so much left to do to recover from the W Bush years.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)It will be blocked by Democrats as well as Republicans. Republicans will block the budget because of tax loopholes being eliminated and Democrats will block it to protect Social Security and Medicare...This budget is dead on arrival...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'd still get to claim the GOP saved SS by rejecting an assault on senior benefits so repugnant an offer even the President's own party rejected him as too extremist.
Tell me you won't hear that on Fox & Friends some morning.
I was also thinking, while making a reply to another poster up-thread, what a bitter betrayal this must be to the AARP that lobbied to get the PPACA passed. I'm a tad too young to be on their mailing list, I wonder if they've weighed in on this as of yet.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)A) The cuts are too small. Accepting Obama's offer would require the GOP to state that offer as an acceptable reform to those programs. For the GOP, that's not the case. Its not nearly enough (for the GOP), and so accepting the deal would weaken their ability to claim the program needs further reform later.
B) Boehner can't accept any deal with more tax revenues. They'd force him out of the speaker role for even trying.
Other points ...
On the Dems boasting about "never touching SS" ... didn't the Dems helped raise the age from 65 to 67 in 1983? That cat is out of the bag already.
The GOP won't claim to be protecting SS when they reject the offer. They'll say chained CPI alone doesn't do enough to "save" SS. This is the same framing as when they claim privatization will "save" social security.
I keep seeing people refer to this as the "opening offer" or as you claim "opening bid". In reality, the budget debate has been going on, non-stop since Obama took office. Its the same basic financial fight repeating over and over, whether the focal point is debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, sequester, bush tax cuts, continuing resolutions, and so on. These are not separate events anymore. They are now all part of a larger, endless fight. That's the point of the endless obstruction.
As for the GOP calling Obama's bluff, and the view that Obama would look bad backing down. The premise leaves out a few things. To call Obama's bluff, Boehner not only has to verbally accept a deal in principle (which is all he can do initially), he then has to create a bill that reflects the agreement. And there is no way he can do that. The GOP House won't accept a bill that Obama would sign, and Obama won't sign the insane bill that the GOP would come up with ... basically, Boehner would again have to break the deal with specifics all laid out in the bill. Which he can't do.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)That someone should NOT have been Obama. I weep to think the OP may be right about the lose-lose-lose scenario. Can anything good possibly come of this?
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)The president seems quite isolated from our anger, opinions, name-calling and rhetoric. Maybe rank and file Democrats getting ugly might get through?
(I doubt it.......)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Emperor Palpatine smiling his evil smile as he exhorts Anakin to give in to his feelings.
Larrylarry
(76 posts)The GOP support the chain CPI cut but will never vote for the bill because it contains tax increases
This is the most likely scenario
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)attacked Democrats as the party who are out to destroy SS and claim that she will 'fight to preserve it and will not vote for any such bill'. Please read the OP again. This was predicted by people who are capable of thinking. Now the Republicans will be the ones who 'saved SS'. They sure won't say they didn't vote against tax increases. What would YOU do? They will do what Bachmann is doing as everyone expected, except of course, those too blind to see.
Larrylarry
(76 posts)The GOP is on record calling for entitlement cuts
to turn around and attack democrats for entitlement cuts would really expose them even further
I dare them to attack the president for chain CPI it simply won't happen
Chain CPI is on the table
are the Democrats taking any fire from the Republicans ?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I take it? She 'will never vote for those cuts' she says. Of course some of us know she is lying, but a whole lot of people will not. This is why this 'chess' game we are told the president is playing was so, very dangerous and just plain wrong.
The only way it would have been impossible for her to take advantage of this would have been if a Democratic President had not presented her with the opportunity which she grabbed like a thirsty man in the desert. Someone doesn't understand the way politics works in this party. Whoever they are should be fired, removed from the party.
Larrylarry
(76 posts)Her own party won't even listen to her, much less the rest of he nation
She can say what she wants , it only does damage to the GOP
We all see that her statements only do damage to the GOP , not the Dems
When was the last time Michelle did damage to the Dems ?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What Sabrina was addressing was that it was used as a weapon in the campaign. In a Bachman v Obama match-up I expect the President to win but the President isn't running in 2014, but his party is and this proposal has every appearance of damaging his party.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)she beat them, she is in Congress and the Dem she ran against isn't. I call THAT doing damage to the Dems. Now maybe you think we can afford to keep losing seats in Congress to people like her, but the rest of us who tried to help her opponent win, don't agree at all.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They very much believed that Obama would cut Social Security.
And now, they know they were right. Obama wants to cut Social Security to pay for Bush's wars, for Bush's torture, for Bush's Guantanamo (and the remodeling going on down there), for Bush's tax cuts and for Bush's Homeland Security.
Way to go, Obama. (sarcasm)
Larrylarry
(76 posts)Obama has cut SS
Are you sure SS was cut ?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is being announced after weeks and months of negotiations.
Nobody is admitting it, and there will be changes, but I think it has probably been written and Obama or someone in his administration kind of leaked the bad news in the hopes we would all "get over it" before the worst of it passes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in 2014. This is the stupidest mistake yet.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)First, a Democratic President offered to touch SS. Ergo, the subject is no longer taboo. The charge has gone out of the third rail and it may now be touched with impunity. That is far too much territory to concede with no discernible gain.
Second, it doesn't matter why they vote down his budget what matters is what they will say was their motive while standing in front of the cameras; which leads me to
Thirdly, the President's own party has to turn on him to salavage their constituencies so the GOP gets to say they protected seniors and the disabled from a president too extremist for his fellow Democrats.
As I noted up-thread, tell me you won't see that on Fox & Friends. As evidence I ask you to recall the election. We all know the GOP would gut MediCare if given half the chance but Romeny made great sport of bludgeoning the President with claims the PPACA had cut reimbursements to doctors providing MediCare services. Disingenuous? Yes. But when has that ever figured into politics? How many votes could that have cost and how many votes will it cost when we're dealing with a mid-term election rather than a presidential election?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)awful proposal first become public. Even the suggestion of offering up SS by a Democrat has already caused enormous damage. You laid out why perfectly. So whose idea was it? Imho, whoever suggested it should be removed from the Democratic Party..
TimberValley
(318 posts)It gets people stoked up and passionate about defending Social Security - over a bill that is most likely not going to pass anyway.
If it were likely to pass, that would be another issue, but it's not, so this gets people riled up and protective of Social Security.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)
It was a ridiculous bluff.
You bluff for three reasons -
1) Short term gain: To try to win a hand when holding what you believe to be inferior cards.
2) Long term gain: To look past winning the hand, and to try to get your opponent to reveal something about their style of play
3) Strategic gain: you only want to up the ante in the pot, breaking the lesser players more quickly, and so eventually allowing you to concentrate on the 1 or 2 players against whom you have chosen to wage an end game.
So, does the President believe that protecting Social Security is a handful of inferior cards, does he not yet understand the nature of the game that the Republicans are playing, or is he trying to split his opponents into groups to divide and conquer?
If the #1, then WTF is he doing with a (D) next to his name? If #2, then WTF will it take for his eyes to be opened? If #3, who are the imagined "lesser players" at the table?
Of course, maybe Obama wasn't bluffing at all. Maybe he was hoping for a grand bargain, and didn't mind cutting bits of the safety net in order to get what he wanted.
Is that the kind of representation that we voted for?
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)The problem is with the denial of some people.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)he has an excellent point.
However, reading over your post, I'm confused. I will quote what I'm confused about:
...If #2, then WTF is he doing with a (D) next to his name?
I have no idea what your logic here is. Please explain.
demwing
(16,916 posts)I switched 1 and 2 above, and not below.
Corrected my post, thanks for the heads up. 
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)one can just about count on people like Obama to revive them.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I am not African American, so perhaps I am out of line asking this. But I ask it in the most honest and genuine frame of mind.
Is there something troubling about a president of color trying very hard to get old racist white men to like him and compromise with him?
He seems to operate from a mindset of weakness. This gives power to those white men.
I realize that if he came on strong and righteous that he would be labeled the angry black man and they would neutralize him like they did Jesse Jackson.
But Obama the community organizer *seems* to be weak, and that also works for Republicans.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Just fucking wow.
On edit -- I was so stunned by what you said I couldn't think of the words. Now I have.
You're accusing the President of the United States of putting on a minstrel show to curry favor. I'm floored.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)You just did.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)maybe people voted for President Obama because they wanted an angry black man?
Maybe that's what people wanted.
Maybe a lot of people, perhaps not consciously, identified strongly with the struggle of African-Americans after being treated so badly, so rudely, so dismissively, so disdainfully, so cruelly by George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Think about it. It is quite possible.
And when Obama bested Romney, verbally but very resoundingly beat and embarrassed Romney in the debates, don't you think that people including white people, people of all races, saw just a glimpse of an angry man who would defend them?
The angry black man image is not totally negative. It has a very positive side to it, believe it or not.
I hope my post does not offend people. I think that what we miss in Obama is someone who will really fight for us. He can do it. But somehow he all too often refuses to do it.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)and the Republicans would choose suffocation.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ProSense
(116,464 posts)House Democrats are not going to support Social Security cuts, which means that the only way it passes the House is with Republican votes. Republicans don't want to be tagged with the vote. It has no chance in the Senate.
Boehner is never going to agree to the President's proposal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022623491
Also, you're ignoring the changes Clinton and other Presidents made to Social Security
The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)In addition to that, what's to stop the GOP from scuttling the rest of the President's budget and stuffing a chained CPI into one of their own while daring the Democrats to oppose their own president?
Don't think like you, think like your opponent. They have every motive to twist what you want into something you won't like.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)post #22:
History: The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157
That's the point about rejecting it, not voting for it, the other part of the "win'win."
They will never vote for it because they will own it.
That's simply buying into a position the GOP would try to use without calling them out on their own actions.
House Republicans vote to end Medicare, again (passes Paul Ryan's Budget)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022546279
Senate GOP backs radical Ryan plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002696142
VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)they don't have a single constituent on Medicare, Medicaid and/or SS.
Or are their constituents so racist they don't care about losing all their benefits just to get a win against the Black President?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)1. Obama attempted to cut social security benefits for senior citizens and those who will be someday.
2. The republicans said no and refused to allow his proposal to even be voted on.
Therefore:
1. Obama hates older people and
2. Boner and congressional republicans are the ones who stand up for them.
They will hear this again and again from the liberal media. This is all they will hear because they don't do "subtle" very well and 12 dimensional chess doesn't mean jack shit to them.
Social Security is more important to most Americans than gun control, It is more important than immigration reform. It is more important than abortion or same sex marriage and it's more important than ever because most middle aged Americans have awakened to the fact that they can't rely on pensions or 401k's to sustain them in their older years.
I'm unhappy with the president because I thought he was smarter than to allow himself to be sucked into a trap like this. And I see no upside for him. I'm really unhappy because I believe it will bite the Democrats in the ass in the 2014 midterms and destroy any chance they have to regain a congressional majority.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"Social Security is more important to most Americans than gun control, It is more important than immigration reform. It is more important than abortion or same sex marriage and it's more important than ever because most middle aged Americans have awakened to the fact that they can't rely on pensions or 401k's to sustain them in their older years."
That's why the reaction is so strong on this, even stronger than on the other issues you mentioned.
We are all scared. We all know that this economy is not getting better very fast, and a lot of us are not getting any interest on our savings if we are so lucky as to be able to save.
A lot of people in their 40s and 50s have had to or are having to spend their "retirement" savings to educate their children or pay their mortgages or living expenses.
Wall Street and Nixon, Clinton, Reagan and the Bushes made promises and raised our hopes. But the reality as we now see is very different. ERISA which is the law that is supposed to protect employee benefits like retirement funds did just the opposite.
So here we are with our pension plans, our health care, education for our kids and grandkids, things that we should provide for ourselves as a social community, privatized, segmented.
Divide and conquer is the slogan. And that is what the Ayn Rand types who have really been running our economy since at least Reagan have done. We are conquered because we allowed ourselves to fall for the privatization meme.
Private means small business.
Big corporations are publicly owned by just by a small clique in the public.
I am not a socialist. I would like to see capitalism in our country that is not allowed to be too big to fail. We cannot have a good Social Security system, a functioning post office or the best schools possible unless we work together as a community and put and end to the privatization movement.
They are not talking about personal responsibility and personal ownership of businesses and commerce when they say privatization. They mean taking what has always been or should be in the hands of the people, of the governments and placing it in the hands of the rich oligarchs. That's all that privatization amounts to.
And these cuts to Social Security are part of the Ayn Randian privatization movement. Greenspan, et al. are the priests of that cult.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She was born the day before the assassination of JFK in fact. She is slowly coming to grips with the fact that she will not be able to retire at 60 like her mother and I both did, and since she has had some health issues she can't afford to leave the job that she has since her employer picks up the tab for her health insurance. She and her husband have done all the right things financially like putting money into 401k's and using their home equity to help their two kids with college and/or business startup assistance. Now she realizes they may have failed to put enough aside for themselves.
Our son has finally become an adult at age 46 and has begun to save money instead of spending it on boats and motorcycles but he too is faced with the prospect of a long working life and bleak prospects for retirement as well as putting a very talented son through college.
Grandma and I are comfortable and I think we are set for the rest of our lives but we've cut back on some of the things we planned to do, simply because we were afraid that this crappy economy would screw up our kids' futures and we wanted to leave something for them.
Neither of our kids are wild eyed left wing radicals. Both are almost apolitical in fact. I'm not sure my son even bothered to vote in 2012. But they both are becoming big supporters of the so called liberal agenda although I don't think they realize it.
Our kids, in other words, are very typical of the generation that's going to suffer the most from the implementation of the chained CPI and if they don't examine the situation closely they will very likely come away with the impression that it was Obama who wanted to mess with their SS and the republicans who stuck up for them.
It's a real image/PR problem for the president in other words and I don't think he even realizes the magnitude of the problem.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I've been having this argument for a few days now and all I've received in the way of response was misdirection and non sequiturs.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)by selling out the 99% for the benefit of the 1%.
The man is not stupid. I cannot believe that he is unaware of your points or that his action is a mere error.
Because I wish to honor your request for no vitriol, I will refrain from offering further character analysis.
randome
(34,845 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)In fact, they favor gun control.
As for climate change, one word.
Keystone.
randome
(34,845 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)show up for Clooney's fundraiser, way before the election. You are really reaching.
randome
(34,845 posts)Regardless of what one thinks of this specific offer, that much has to be admitted.
I don't believe in having 'faith' in an individual. We are all imperfect.
But until something actually gets pushed to the front of the line, I'm willing to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)has messily devolved into appearing to be insisting on cuts, into allowing the argument that there's a case for cuts.
The Republicans wanted the Chained CPI and now that they are offered it they are playing cute about it. They are counting on how uninformed the public is about the long history of budget negotiations between this administration and the Republicans.
http://www.politicususa.com/gop-hijacked-budget-december-chained-cpi-its.html
Imo, the administration needs to step back from negotiating right now, they need to start making the case that the Republicans need to start dealing honestly.
Imo, the Republicans are dead set on dishonest negotiation. The Republican leaders can't promise anything. Any deal will get voted down so as to get more concessions from us.
We need to state the reality of the situation.
Put out a honest, fair, budget and get the public to insist the Republicans negotiate with that. Make them openly fight for any compromises. Collegiality be damned, at this point.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He is Pete Peterson's president. He is not "our" president.
He refuses to prosecute bankers. HE suggests the chained CPI which is a cut to middle-class recipients of Social Security who are receive benefits just barely high enough to keep them above the poverty level.
He didn't have to propose the chained CPI. The Constitution is clear that it is the duty of the House to initiate revenue and money bills.
Obama could have let Boehner suggest this damaging scheme to hurt the middle class.
Why did he do this?
Because he doesn't understand economics, and because he is addicted to people-pleasing.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)and we should have refused the demand anyway, though we could have offered them something to save face.
http://www.politicususa.com/gop-hijacked-budget-december-chained-cpi-its.html
In December of 2012, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said he had to have chained CPI.
Instead, we are left holding the bag for agreeing to the cuts, we're in public holding out cuts, while the Republicans have drifted away.
They can do that because they are ok with pushing the nation to failure. This is who we are negotiating with and assuming otherwise is costing us.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,088 posts)The "Third Rail" has been touched and Obama's got a near fatal jolt. But if he can be given CPR and he opens up to how poorly he was advised by Wall Street operatives, then we all get a second chance.
A girl's gotta dream.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)if they can't get their people to risk the wrath of Grover Norquist, to provide a long term raise of the debt ceiling.
Not that I'm in favor of such swapping of even both those things in exchange for letting Republicans get to have a victory over SS.
It's time to get Presidential, or threaten to do so, by way of an address to the people regarding the bad faith negotiations of Republicans.
That would put the heat on them. Make them publicly have to answer what programs get cut and that they will cut SS benefits.
Our representatives have reasonable answers to any questions regarding a progressive way forward.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This is a disaster on all fronts. He must have assurance of some HUGE paychecks in retirement to do something so stupid AND despicable.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)When I read your thread title, I was already thinking "for the GOP" before I clicked on the thread. 
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)Many DUers seem to think that it would somehow weaken Social Security, but actually all it does is redistribute benefits. It would reduce benefits slightly for current retirees and those near retirement, a big part of the Republican base. But by reducing benefits in the near term it would retain more dollars in the trust fund collecting interest to pay future benefits. As a result, it would extend the projected life of the trust fund by four or five years. In addition to hitting the GOP base the hardest, it would also raise income taxes across the board. It's true that it would reduce the near term deficit somewhat, but of course we know that Republicans don't really care about deficits.
