White House:We only proposed cuts to SS because the GOP asked us to WTF!!!!

[bigdarryl]

I though they said it wasn't a cut they were doing with the CPI.What ever JACK ASSES they have running the messaging there in the WH they need to be fired ASAP What real democrat would do something like listening to the rethugs when they ask can you make cuts to Social Security JESUS LORD !!! help us http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201003/-White-House-We-only-proposed-Social-Security-cut-because-GOP-asked-us-to

[JHB]

1. No one could have predicted...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. Great graphic!

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Pretty much

Does Obama realize he actually WON the election?

[alfredo]

80. He gave them what they want, but they won't give him what he wants, so no deal.

He wants to raise taxes on the rich.

[Myrina]

85. My ass. The budget he presented is what he wants.

Stop fooling yourself.

[alfredo]

87. Ryan has already said he will not give on anything. I don't think Obama's budget

will even make it to the floor.

[Sherman A1]

91. Never the less

The proposed budget is in fact the plan of his administration with an awful lot of copies printed to back up that statement. The GOP agrees or does not, the budget comes into being or does not, that isn't the point. The proposed budget IS the plan of the administration.

[robinlynne]

101. with very fancing binding, I might add.

[alfredo]

119. There is another poison pill the Reps won't swallow, that is raising the minimum wage to $9.

It's either the Ryan budget as written, or nothing in the house.



This whole CPI thing has gotten our attention, and that is what Obama wants. When people pay attention they will see Republicans unwilling to give on any revenue, no matter how small.


Obama and the Dems win when the Republicans act like spoiled brats. Obama wins when he shows willingness to give the Republicans what they want: Chained CPI. Remember Obama has mentioned on many occasions how the Republicans reject their own ideas when Obama advances them. Obama wins when the Republicans reject his "reasonable offer" because it also closes tax loopholes enjoyed by the rich.


Changing the filibuster rules in the Senate means little without Pelosi as speaker in the house. First we have to regain the house, and then change the rules in the senate. This budget battle is about reinforcing the narrative we've built around the Republicans.


It's all about 2014!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. Exactly!

[Liberalynn]

25. I'd be ROTFLMAO if this wasn't so sad

[magical thyme]

77. perfect image.

thank you. Left me

[randome]

2. If they propose NO cuts, nothing will get done for at least 2 more years.

Proposing a very minor change -with exceptions for certain low incomes- is probably the least they could find to simply get the process moving.

No cuts have been made. I doubt anything will survive the House or Senate. This was only to get the process started, IMO.

I am tired of the 'hate Obama' crowd leaping to excoriate the man who gave us Obamacare, gay rights, gun control and a consistent push for equitable taxation.

He may not be perfect but I think he deserves the benefit of a doubt.

[flamingdem]

3. I grudgingly agree, especially when we MUST end the sequester cuts asap

What choices does he have? It's always that vicious circle with the nutjobs on the other side.

[randome]

15. Everyone acts like Obama is the only part of the budget process.

He's no king. He has to work with some horrible people in Congress.

It's Congress that controls the budget process.

[Skittles]

67. stop acting like Obama is a fucking bystander

[quakerboy]

71. Thats what makes this all the more baffling

Why, given that the congress is responsible for the budget, did the president even open this door of discussion? Why make yourself the lightning rod, attach such a bad idea to your own name?

[randome]

73. I think (I don't know) that he wanted to peel off a few Repubs from the House.

That may have been a miscalculation. We need to let him and our Reps know this, not throw our hands up (not saying you're doing that) and say, "Game over!"

[quakerboy]

126. No handthrowing here

I think some of the consequences will be irreversible. When you open a door to something like this, many, maybe even most people will only ever see the surface. All they will hear is *the* Democratic president wants to cut social security.

Next election cycle, regardless of what actually results from these discussions, you better believe the fact that the face of the Democratic party said "I'm ready to cut social security" will come up in virtually every house and senate race. All the more so since he has previously stated he would not do so, and portrayed his position as principled opposition to his republican opponents.

That much is done, unless something radical happens (say the president coming out and admitting that his offer was a mistake, and letting the people know it will never happen again, that he is listening to them). But radical doesn't seem to be in the temperament of this president.

The cuts dont have to happen. Thats where we dont throw our hands up. Thats where all of us need to keep calling the white house, our representatives, our senators. And writing. And emailing. And eventually voting, based on our beliefs and the actions and statements our various elected representatives

[Jackpine Radical]

83. He's been dangling the CPI (Catfood Price Index) since the debates.

He has now given those horrible people what they want, and they are giving him the finger.

[randome]

96. He hasn't 'given' them anything.

Republicans are twisting themselves into knots over this.

A trio of Republicans senators say 'No way!'
While the Club For Growth is telling them to stop saying that.
While Grover Norquist calls CCPI a 'tax increase'.

I'm not saying that was Obama's strategy. I still think it was a mistake. But it's not the budget that gets voted on and Democrats in the Senate will not allow this to pass so...the sky is not falling, IMO.

[GiveMeFreedom]

88. PBO is the leader of the Democratic Party

Do we agree on that? If so, then how the fuck can the White House utter the words "CUT SOCIAL SECURITY" in a press release? Congress might control the budget process, but PBO controls the party and just about every-fucking-thing else.

[randome]

95. I wish he hadn't done so. I think it's a mistake to have done so.

So we need to hold his feet to the fire, as well as the feet of our Reps. Too many here want to throw up their hands and shout, "Game over!"

It's never over.

[GiveMeFreedom]

112. Yes, I agree we should hold our representatives accountable

and I do call and write my reps, plus I vote. But, sir, I do not apologize for them. The reason I don't is then I am in conflict with what I believe. By apologizing for them is like saying "Gee, you fuckers really screwed the pooch on this one, but that's alright, I won't look to close at what you did, I'll try to forget and move on with my life, you fuckers are doing a good enough job" Fuck that. They fucked up and we know it now. So I am holding their feet to the fire and will not defend their actions in anyway. Peace.

[bigdarryl]

5. Minor!!! tell that to a 85 year old who lives ONLY off of Social Security

Its obvious your not of age to collect SS other wise you wouldn't have made such a dumb ass statement like that.

[myrna minx]

10. There must be some very wealthy folks posting here to be able to shrug off

these cuts. This proposal is terrifying for many people. For some $5.00 is their food budget.

[randome]

11. Did you not see the "-with exceptions for certain low incomes-" part of my post?

It's to get the process moving. Nothing is set in stone and I don't see that anything like actual cuts will survive the Senate or the House or the House/Senate committee.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Yeah, if you manage to make it to 85 you'll get bumped back

to the level that you should have been at all along over the previous 15 to 20 years. Or is you are so poor that you can't even afford your rent maybe you can be exempted, but if you are only poor enough to be able to pay your rent but not to heat your home over 60 degrees in winter - just hold on until you are 85 and then they will make it up to you. This from an administration that accepted making tax cuts permanent on "middle class" income of up to $400,000 a year.

[randome]

69. It's still just a way to get the process started.

I don't think he should have even gone there in the first place. But the sky is not falling, either.

We need to express our outrage to ensure that it doesn't.

[Fuddnik]

78. It's a sure fire way to hand both houses to the repukes in 2014.

[randome]

81. I hope it's not THAT much of a miscalculation.

If that starts to look like a real possibility, I would like Obama to publicly admit his error.

[GiveMeFreedom]

97. I'm sorry, but this post is truly apologetic.

And since we are playing "future" guessing games, I believe PBO will apologize for this "little miscalculation" right after GWB, Dick C, Condy R, and the rest of that ilk apologizes first for there little miscalculation.

[enlightenment]

105. That's not what it says.

The President has made clear that any such change in approach should protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, the Budget includes protections for the very elderly and others who rely on Social Security for long periods of time, and only applies the change to non-means tested benefit programs.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/682536/130410-obama-2014-budget-full.pdf (page 46)

You say "with exception for certain low incomes" - that is definitely not what it says in the budget. As a matter of fact, the phrase "low income" occurs only in a couple of references: encouraging "low income" folks to use generic drugs and reducing funding for the HOME investment partnership program. It also pops up in a table that spells out what LIHEAP means (a line item).

You're making suppositions - since you feel comfortable with that, why don't you:
Define "very elderly".
Define "long periods of time".
List "non-means tested benefit programs".

Unless you have a third eye, your ability to determine what will or will not happen means nothing. It is pure conjecture - which makes your argument no more valid than those you are denigrating with the tired "Obama haters" title.

[randome]

110. You're right, I don't know what those phrases are intended to mean.

But that's why the President's budget PROPOSAL is only a starting point. It's the Senate and then the House and then the House/Senate reconciliation committees that thrash all that out.

I am not presuming to know anything. All I'm saying is we need to make our outrage known, not throw our hands up and declare, "Game over!" as so many seem to advocate.

[enlightenment]

113. Randome,

I don't disagree with the statement that no one should be throwing their hands up in the air just yet -but you're being just a tad disingenuous suggesting that you were only saying that in your comments. Your first post in this thread was much more a condemnation of those who do not believe the President should be proposing this at all.

"I am tired of the 'hate Obama' crowd leaping to excoriate the man . . ."

No, we don't know what's going to happen, but you seem to be doing your best to defend a rather massive potential misstep by the President. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's the way it looks.

[randome]

120. It seemed that way to me, though.

That too many were giving up and seizing on the next available opportunity to trash the President.

When some posters are saying each and every day how terrible our lives must be and how disappointed they are by Obama, it's hard NOT to take an opposite stance when they point out something that SHOULD be pointed out.

It's like someone saying over and over again, "Don't do that. Don't do that. Don't do that."

When the opportunity arises, the first thing you want to do is whatever they've been telling you not to do.

But I've 'evolved' on this issue, as I usually do with any DU thread. I think Obama made a mistake and we should hold his feet to the fire. I don't agree with the sentiment, "See? Told you he was ALWAYS against us!"

[enlightenment]

123. Reasonable.

And an honest response. Thank you.

There's a whole lot of "my way or the highway" these days - everywhere you look. Not just in politics, but in almost every aspect of life. I'm not sure why, but I agree that it gets tedious and frustrating.

I don't hold any politician in high regard - I'm always suspicious of the motives of these "public servants" who seem to ultimately want to most serve their own interests - and I've always believed that their actions speak much more truthfully than their words. In that regard, the current President doesn't rate any differently than the one before - or the one before him - or the one before him (etc).

So, yes, sentiments that suggest this President has never supported his base are hyperbolic and useless - and so are the sentiments that opine he's "got this" or some other nonsense.

The proof is in the pudding. Unfortunately, the recipe for this particular pudding seems to include a toxic ingredient. That's what has a lot of folks worried, and rightfully so.

[HarmonyRockets]

121. +1

Well said.

[Laurian]

18. Nothing's going to get done anyway, so why give them this gift. n/t

[randome]

22. What gift? No cuts have happened or are likely to happen.

The mere offer may be enough to peel off a couple of Republicans in the House. Micro-managing the Presidency is ridiculous unless he does something egregious like, oh, invade another country for no reason.

[ZombieHorde]

26. It's a political gift. nt

[randome]

28. Norquist is calling it a tax increase.

The one Republican who spoke publicly against it is getting flak from the Club For Growth.

It's not as simple as a political gift to anyone. In fact, if Republicans come out en-masse to protect SS, then that probably makes it safer in the long term.

Not that I think this was the kind of political calculation that went into this.

It's just a proposal to get the ball rolling, IMO. The proposal will likely go nowhere.

[Scuba]

24. "the man who gave us Obamacare gayrights, gun control and a consistent push for equitable taxation."

After careful scrutiny of this list I am not impressed.

[randome]

43. I guess you won't benefit from health care, are not gay, don't care about Newtown...

...and don't care that corporations make out like bandits.

Although I know that none of those things apply to you (except for being gay, I don't know you.)

But those are solid accomplishments. They may not be enough but look what we have to work with in the House. In this type of climate, maybe it's a lot.

[Scuba]

63. Actually ...

Obamacare is far short of Medicare for All, short of which we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the hospital ship Titanic.

Gayrights? I'm trying to recall what the President has done one this front besides "evolve". Ending the discrimination of DADT I guess.

Gun control? What gun control? Nothing has been done and anything that may get done will be watered down, so despite every life saved by universal background checks (if we get that) there will be more lost because of lack of political will. Not Obama's fault, but you can't give him credit for anything either.

As for a "consistent push for equitable taxation" I seem to recall more rhetoric than accomplishment. Certainly proposing cuts in Social Security while the wealthiest enjoy historically low tax rates fall short of such a "push".

[randome]

64. He's pushing for all those things.

Having a House controlled by obstructionist Republicans means very little can get accomplished so under the current environment, I think he's done a lot.

None of these things would have gotten even a mention if Romney was President.

That doesn't mean we should sit back and relax or hold Obama's feet to the fire.

But I don't think a non-voting proposal of CCPI means the sky is falling, either.

[GiveMeFreedom]

117. Thank you Scuba

[GiveMeFreedom]

116. You feeling it to Scuba? n/t

[pampango]

33. To complicate things, Democrats favor 'compromise' (in general) more than republicans

................. .....................

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/17/section-2-views-of-congress-and-the-parties/

The most resistant to compromise were conservative republicans and those who agree with the tea party. The most open to compromise were liberal Democrats and 'lean Democratic' independents.

Liberal Democrats were also more open to compromise than conservative Democrats which seems strange on the face of it. You would think that conservative Democrats would be more willing to compromise. In terms of policy beliefs they are closer to their 'conservative' buddies in the republican party.

Liberal Democrats must be more open to compromise for reasons other than policy positions since they are farther from republican policy choices than anyone else. Their willingness to compromise must be due to the fact that they are more open and tolerant of opposing views which is what you might expect from a group that values diversity and does not expect everyone to agree with them.

I suspect that Obama knows that Democrats, particularly liberal ones, tend to favor compromise. That certainly does not mean that all liberal Democrats do, but most. He probably believes that the left will not hold it against him since the only way CPI will happen is if republicans make such huge concessions that they essentially call his bluff.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. This has always been the problem. We liberals are not representative of the entire Democratic party.

Until we change the culture of the party, we'll keep getting the shaft as liberals.

Republicans are NEVER expected to compromise. Democrats are. Democrats are expected to govern.

We can bitch, moan and cry 'til the cows come home, but as long as this is the reality; as long as this double standard persists, we can't really do anything about it.

We have to elect more progressives to Congress, sure. But we also need to change the culture mindset of rank-in-file in the party. I'm not sure how we do that, particularly those more moderate to conservative Democrats who live in RED or midwestern states.

[NCTraveler]

34. You cannot be serious.

"excoriate the man who gave us Obamacare, gay rights, gun control and a consistent push for equitable taxation."

[randome]

44. Are those not accomplishments?

[NCTraveler]

70. Some no. Some yes. Some we have yet to see.

Obamacare - We have yet to see. There is a very good chance it has mad private insurers even stronger. It will leave many uninsured. Time will tell on this on. It does have some very good provisions. I do not think its general direction can be considered an accomplishment.

Gave us gay rights - That could not be more condescending. Equality has not been achieved. Just a couple of years ago he was publicly against gay rights. I am glad he is "evolving" and he is helping to gain ground with respect to gay rights. He gave them to us...Please.

Gun control - What gun control?

Equitable taxation - No, he has not consistently pushed for equitable taxation. Some of his speeches have been wonderful in this area. His actions not so much.

[randome]

76. You're right, not all of those are 'accomplishments'.

I meant he has been pushing these consistently. As well as contraception coverage. He has weakened both Republicans and the Catholic Church with the decisions that he can make.

But his hands are still tied by the Republican-dominated House. Proposing over and over something you know will never get a hearing just shows him as powerless.

Proposing chained CPI, on the other hand, may (I repeat, MAY) peel off a few Republicans to his side.

I doubt such a scheme will survive through all the committees.

[bvar22]

35. The elderly and retired are being SO selfish!

Surely those on Social Security can give up a little of their retirement funds
so that
The Military can build more weapons,
and the BIG Corporations can keep their subsidies,
And Wall Street Execs keep their Bailout Bonuses,

and Raising the Cap would place TOO much hardship on the RICH!





http://savesocialsecurity.tumblr.com/

I know where I stand.
---bvar22
an old, obsolete, mainstream New Deal Working Class Democrat.

[randome]

41. Obama does not control the budgetary process.

In fact, most of his proposals are rejected by our illustrious House of Representatives.

[bvar22]

53. President Obama DOES control the Bully Pulpit,

and as Leader of the Democratic Party and President of the United States
he has IMMENSE power to set the agenda of our nation.
I have been alive too long,
and seen too many Democratic Presidents wield that power to believe the weak and powerless nonsense you are peddling here.


[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[Scootaloo]

94. So where are those people now?

I've been saying it over and over again, howling on the internet is the only form of protest LESS effective than street theater.

[randome]

98. He HAS used the bully pulpit on gay rights, gun control, equitable taxation, etc.

Why he hasn't on this, I don't understand. But then I'm not President. We need to let him know what we want, and what we will not accept.

The sky is not falling.

[dgibby]

114. And I'm standing right there with you,

except that I'm an Independent (who always votes with the Dems); however, that may change if this nonsense keeps up. I'd never vote repuke, but I can't support this type of abomination and betrayal.

[AgingAmerican]

36. "This was only to get the process started, IMO"

From Rachel Last Night talking to David Axelrod:

" I believe you that he believes in his budget, but I think that if what he really believes in is Social Security benefit cuts, he's going to feel the ground beneath his feet give way. And I think this is the start that ends badly on the Democratic party."

[randome]

40. And if any actual cuts -other than hypothetical ones- get through the entire budgetary process...

...I agree all of them should feel the ground beneath their feet shift. But Obama does not control the budget. Congress does.

[AgingAmerican]

42. Obama went there

It's too late, he can't undo proposing it.

Of course it will fail. It will also be hung around Obama and the Democrat's necks come 2014.

[randome]

52. Not enough to vote Republican, I'll wager.

I'm curious if anyone can dig up examples of past Presidential budget proposals that may not have been quite as...perfect...as we would have wanted.

I'm betting similar examples can be found.

What makes it different this time is two things, I think:
1. Some are practically salivating at the possibility of denigrating him.
2. He has given us a taste of liberal policies and after too long an absence, we want much more of the same.

I'm more in line with #2 but I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt until the ACTUAL -not the Presidential proposal- budget gets off the ground.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Obama went there

Bush tried to go there in 2006 and it cost the GOP the midterms that year.

[randome]

72. Bush tried to privatize SS.

We need to hold Obama and our Reps' feet to the fire on this but I see too many posts saying, essentially, 'Give up.'

Outrage is only effective when it's directed at the right targets.

[AgingAmerican]

74. "The third rail of politics"

Bush tried to make changes, and got his ass handed to him.

After Bushes blunder SS was labeled, "The third rail of politics".

Obama knew this, now he is attempting to blame it on the Republicans. "They asked me to do it".

Sigh....

[randome]

79. I don't like it, either, and I don't want to be in the position of saying it's right.

We need to direct our outrage at Obama and our Reps, not, as some seem to prefer, throw our hands up and say, "Game over!"

[progressoid]

47. Gee, I dunno. How about cutting the military instead?

[winter is coming]

65. I'd rather accomplish nothing than "accomplish" something harmful.

Movement should never be confused for progress.

[haikugal]

6. So we get dragged to the right....

crying about how helpless we are to do anything about it? How convenient for him and all the other tools...

[avaistheone1]

7. Well then Mr President are you working for the Republicans or working for the American people?

[TheProgressive]

16. How many dinners did Obama have with Democrats?

Hmmmmm

[avaistheone1]

27. ...How many meetings has he had with progressive media?

[bvar22]

62. How many members of the Progressive Caucus...

..have been appointed to positions of Authority or Power in the Obama Administration?

[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

[unrepentant progress]

8. Wouldn't it be grand if...

The Democratic Party did stuff its members asked for, rather than stuff the Republican Party asks for? I guess that's why I'm just a pie-in-the-sky idealist.

[randome]

17. Wouldn't it be grand if...

...we didn't have the House of Representatives controlled by Republicans? You work with what you have, as unpleasant -and downright nauseating- as it may be sometimes.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Well, I'm pretty damn sure the GOP wants you to write me a check for

a million dollars. Do it! Do it! Do it!

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Why don't they do what progressives tell them to do rather than what the GOP tells them to do?

[randome]

20. Just ignore the Republican controlled House of Representatives, then, right?

The process has to move forward. Sequestration needs to end ASAP. I doubt an actual cut will survive the complicated budget process.

This is only to get the ball moving.

[Vinnie From Indy]

32. Don't ignore them - Tie progressive policies around their necks

and throw them in the deep end. In short, do what the vast majority of Americans want done and turn up the volume on GOP obstructionism.

[randome]

48. I think that's a better tactic, too. That's probably what I would do.

But I'm not on the front lines and in the strategy meetings. If this is what he thinks he needs to do just to get the ball rolling and perhaps end sequestration as soon as possible, then I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.

I truly doubt anything will get past the Senate, House and House/Senate committees that look remotely like his proposals.

[HangOnKids]

100. Money Money Money

It is barf worthy but it is what it is.

[randome]

103. Money is not involved in pushing for gay rights, gun control and revenue increases.

Money is involved in politics, no doubt about it, but not EVERYTHING is about the money.

[Triana]

13. Jayzus X-mas.

[eShirl]

19. And if the GOP asked you to jump off a bridge?

[magellan]

21. So they're saying Obama does what the GOP ask, not what's best for Americans?

Dems taking orders from the MINORITY party?? And this is supposed to mollify everyone HOW, exactly? Are we supposed to say, "Well of course, if the Repubs ask for it then you have to do it"????

If this is true, it's got to be the LAMEST, most infuriating excuse I've ever heard.

[Liberalynn]

29. +1

[randome]

31. You do know that Republicans control the House, right?

And this is where the obstructionism is at its strongest. 'Taking orders' is a big leap. This PROPOSED budget is only to get the process moving forward.

The Senate will vote on it. Then the House. Then the inevitable House/Senate reconciliation will occur. This is a long process and we will know what's being done every step of the way.

[magellan]

39. No!! Really??

Don't fucking talk down to me, randome. You're one of Obama's defenders on the matter of cuts to SS. It's eleventy-dimensional chess and no one understands it but you and the rest of his pom-pom crew. Except it isn't. Chained CPI's in the budget "at the specific request of Republican leaders" according to the WH.

Sounds like a Dem President taking orders from the minority party to me.

If he was so sure they weren't going to accept his proposal, then he didn't have to include *anything* he didn't want to. Same result. And Americans would be seething at Repubs right now instead of HIM.

[randome]

45. No 'talking down' intended.

And I do NOT think he's playing some game the rest of us can't fathom. I've never said that.

But he is on the front lines and we aren't. IN GENERAL, I trust his judgment. Even if he comes to believe this was a mistake, he has shown he knows how to learn from his mistakes.

This is a proposal to get the ball rolling, nothing more. I think we should all calm down before casting Obama as 'evil'.

[magellan]

61. Evil? No.

Making me bitterly sorry I held my nose and voted for him, yes.

You're welcome to remain calm and continue trusting him. Me? No. Because it doesn't matter whether including Chained CPI was his idea or "the Repubs made him do it", or that it's only a budget proposal. That he did it is enough.

[randome]

66. I understand where you're coming from.

But voting for Romney would have decimated us. And NOT voting might well have done the same as cast a vote for Romney.

I do not at all fault you for feeling disappointed. We should still hold Obama's feet to the fire on this and not give up on pushing him to the positions we want him to take.

Outrage can be an effective tool but not if you're going to give up.

[magellan]

75. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into the fear tactics any more

I've listened to that hogwash here since 2004. I'll be voting my conscience now on. Grayson is my rep. First time I voted with a clear conscience. My work will be to get more people like him into office. I won't be enabling corporate/DLC/Third Way sell outs any more.

The responsibility for anyone I don't vote for winning office rests with those who vote for them.

[NCarolinawoman]

60. Agree. Lame and a LIE.

[Myrina]

86. ^^ This post, right here, for the win ^^

Thank you, Magellan, for stating what so many here refuse to see.

[bravenak]

23. They double dog dared him to do it!nt.

[City Lights]

30. Unfuckingbelievable.

Pathetic.

[forestpath]

37. So much for the oft- repeated "B-b-but he KNEW they wouldn't ACCEPT it!!!1!" talking point. NEXT?

[HangOnKids]

102. But I read this morning that you "hate" Obama

You know because he is the Homecoming King and all that.

[forestpath]

108. ROFL. Their Homecoming King keeps yanking their talking points right out from under 'em.

[Boomerproud]

38. Obama is getting very ill-served by his "advisers" (whatever that means)

It's up to him to see their flaws and show them the door.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. He's had breakfast with his advisors this morning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022654791

President Barack Obama is meeting today with 15 heads of the world’s biggest banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)’s Lloyd C. Blankfein and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Jamie Dimon, White House officials said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. He caved again. Or, should that be "as usual"?

[progressoid]

49. Is it too early to start drinking?

Fuck it. I'm broke. Can't afford to even get drunk.

[samsingh]

51. President Obama who i adore seems to do these kinds of things

it's his first debate all over again

[snooper2]

54. Perfect, this will make for great ads LOL

Fucking idiots in the House

[Nite Owl]

55. Great leadership

There. Wow
Did the GOP add anything to their budget because the WH wanted it? Any revenue in their bill?
I think not

[bowens43]

57. that should have been the first sign that it was a bad fucking idea........

damn this guys pisses me off

[patrice]

59. PO used that GOP request to SHOW EVERYONE how the GOP opposes Universal Pre-K

(amongst other good things). It's called "floating" a proposal and, yes, the tactic is at least 50% advertising and 50% something (?) else.

How many people do you think even knew Universal Pre-K was part of the deal before all of this hub bub caused repetition of that NEW program and that even resulted in one of the most powerful men in this milieu, David Axelrod's inclusion of Universal Pre-K in his discussion with Rachel Maddow lastnight. People like David Axelrod don't say anything accidentally. There's a functional purpose to everything that he INCLUDES in his words when he talks to the cameras and with someone like Rachel. FACT. How many people even heard of Universal Pre-K a month ago, compared to how many people know about this proposed program now? Also, what do you gage the appeal of something like Universal Pre-K to be political party-wise? Do you think such a thing has significant appeal ACROSS PARTY LINES?

............................

FOUR fingers!!!!

[neverforget]

68. Republicans want the retirement age raised to age 70 too.

Maybe if he had offered that up then Republicans will finally like him.

Start negotiating from the compromise position? who the hell is he listening too?

[winter is coming]

82. We've been going about this the wrong way. We should contact the WH,

tell them we're Republicans, and say we're against the cuts.

[Demo_Chris]

90. lol

[GiveMeFreedom]

84. Amen Brother bigdarryl, Am-the fuck-en. I can hardly believe it.

What the FUCK is wrong with these "democrats?" are they democrats? Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

[KansDem]

89. Well, if the GOP asked you to jump on the Empire State Building, would you?

I mean, as long as we're being infantile about this...

[Janecita]

99. He probably would

He would also shoot himself on the head on the way down, just to give the GOP a little extra.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. It was an exercise in "audacity" to cave to the Republicans and "hope" the left would suck it up.

[HangOnKids]

107. Perfect!n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

106. Ever the victim, this WH plays that role well. Nothing but excuses and the blame game.

It's either they (repugs) requested such and such or they (dems ) didn't make me do what they wanted.

[TDale313]

109. Mr President...

They're just not that into you.

[randome]

111. A more helpful remark might to be hold his feet to the fire.

Too many want to give up. The sky is not falling.

[TDale313]

118. Whatever.

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

The President can hippie-punch and woo Republicans all he wants. Republicans have made it really clear they have no interest in working with him. Ever. On anything. He's willing to offer up the new deal to get their attention? Screw that. And yeah, well aware that the administration has made it just as clear that they're not that into us on the left. I will do and have been doing all I can to hold their feet to the fire, but damn, this hippie's getting a bit tired of getting punched.

[winter is coming]

122. Looks like people are pretty much holding all of him to the fire.

Whether or not it's part of the final budget, proposing chained CPI is a brain-dead, bone stupid idea and no amount of spin will change that.

[1monster]

115. So, if the GOP asks you to jump off a clif... uh jump off the Empire State Building, woud you?

(addressed to the White House, not the OP)

[Blue Owl]

124. Fuck the GOP -- repeat -- FUCK THE GOP

[Autumn]

125. Yeah and if your friends ask you to jump off a bridge you gonna do it?

That shit don't fly.