Never. Gonna. Happen.

[cliffordu]

This thingy about Chains and the Cola, or the Social Security (almost) Yearly Handout....

This thing y'all are turning into Panic Peeps over is all bullshit.

The numbers aren't there, to begin with.

I mean the numbers of Dems and Repubs needed to get the fucking 'Obamanation' through both Houses.

The votes aren't there. Never will be.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Fucking Bernie Sanders will filibuster the thing. So will that new gal - that one that was up for a nice cabinet position until the fucking idiots on the other side blocked her and then she got her ass elected to Congress and THEN put on the Banking Committee....Liz Warren, right?


So stop with the panic and the vapors and the rest of the bullshit.

Concern trolling is just that. The Chained CPI is more political smoke and mirrors. Let's see what actually gets signed into law.

Snarks about 7th level chess is just jerkin the gherkin.

Obama is playing old school politics.

I've seen the same panic about what the Prez is doing for the last 4 goddamned years on DU.

Pay attention. He's about to deliver another lesson.

All your panics are belong to us.

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. That whooshing sound was another point flying right over your head. n/t

[ohheckyeah]

3. True that. n/t

[cliffordu]

5. Well, gee.

Why not teach the old guy a lesson?

Come on, one Social Security brother to the next, talk to me!!


( I live on Social Security. Teach me what to fear)

[newthinking]

29. Don't buy your argument

If the plan was to place a spark so that cuts will never happen, then why the hell was the administration surprised by the response? A little break in logic in that theory.

I agree, that it may not happen at this point, but I have little doubt that if Democrats had not thrown a fit that there would have been a pretty good chance that the President was serious about throwing this in as a "compromise".

[bornskeptic]

148. Why on earth would you think they were surprised by the response?

Of course they knew what the response would be. Basically, it's exactly what they waned it to be.

[newthinking]

150. Surprised by the breadth of the response

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. You're counting on GOP obstinance for the wrong thing.

Yes, there is every likelihood the GOP will block a CCPI -- in the President's current bill. Of course nothing is stopping them from resurrecting it at anytime claiming the budget was bad but then offer a bipartisan olive branch and dare the Dems to abandon Obama.

"Don't call us obstructionists, we're accepting one of the president's key initiatives on 'entitlement reform' as a show that we can work with this president," they will say with enough effectiveness to peel-off enough blue dogs to make it happen and/or politically cripple Obama when the Democrats have to rally to stop this monstrosity. It also would neutralize one of the strongest criticisms of congress: their do-nothingness.

Or they can resist the CCPI and claim they saved SS thereby undercutting a core Democratic constituency. I've already seen reports to this effect. Please tell us how it is beneficial to the Democratic party that we have now been reduced to praying GOP obstinance will be the sole salvation of one of our key planks.

For the GOP half the fight is about getting a CCPI; the other half is undermining Democratic blocs and fracturing the our leadership. They can afford to sacrifice a CCPI for another election cycle or two if it means gaining a stronger hold on congress and stripping the President of his political capital.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That may be, and I hope you're right. BUT...

Now the chained CPI is part of the discussion.

It's out. It's like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It can't be done.

This will forever be a negotiating point, because Obama brought it up.

And that is wrong.

[GiveMeFreedom]

17. Your right, it is WRONG!

I am not buying the apologists argument that it's some sort of Ouji-Board dimensional chess. It's just plain spooky that a Democratic President would ever utter the words "cut SS" WTF? PBO is the leader of the Democratic Party and he's forever tainted that sanctity of FDR politics and the party. Geez, what a way to be remembered in history? The first black president will pale in comparison to being the first Democratic President ever, to cut Social Security.

As always, very nice to see you Peggy my dear and I am out of the hospital and doing ok. I hope you are fine too. Peace.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

21. My dear GiveMeFreedom!

I'm glad you're out of the hospital and doing OK. I am also doing well!

It's always good to see you too!

[Liberalynn]

65. Agreed

[ohheckyeah]

4. I don't see anybody having the vapors.

What might the lesson be?

[cliffordu]

8. That politics is politics.

And politics is like bluffing in poker.

Everyone has a Strait Flush until the cards get shown.


If the Chained CPI gets signed into law, I'll give up my username and never post here again.


I'll have Skinner deep six me.

Word.

[ohheckyeah]

10. For many people that isn't the point.

The point is he is bluffing with something that affects people's lives. It's not a game to the poor and elderly, not is it politics for them, it's their life.

I certainly don't see it helping the Democrats in 2014.

[cliffordu]

11. Keep Watching.

I've said that about a dozen times in that lasts 4 years.

Just keep watching.

[ohheckyeah]

13. I've been watching and haven't

made one post criticizing the President to date. This, however, pisses me off. It scares many older people and that makes me angry.....they don't need the stress. My 87 year old parents don't need or deserve this shit. Fortunately, they aren't totally dependent on SS but things are tight for them.

[Skittles]

111. you act as if he always one ups

he doesn't

[sabrina 1]

18. SS is not politics, it is the people's fund.

Why is it part of a discussion it has nothing to do with?

Please explain how SS affected the Deficit?

[Bluenorthwest]

43. So clifford, if we are ever in the same room and I'm bluffing at cards and you know it

would you think the best way to assist me would be to run about shouting 'he's bluffing, can't you fools see that'? Because I'd prefer that you keep that information to yourself. This is why I have a hard time believing those who say 'he's bluffing' and yet do not help him sell the bluff, but rather insist that the important part is that everyone knows they know it is a bluff. Seems to me if you really thought it was a bluff, you would act as if it was a bluff, and that means you too would bluff, not shout that he's holding all the good cards.
Just hard to follow the logic that says 'it's a bluff and we should tip that hand'.

[Marr]

73. Seriously, this "bluff" line is just so stupid.

It doesn't make any logical sense at all.

It's a claim that, by offering to cut Social Security, Obama makes his *opponents* look bad. It's asinine, I'm sorry.

[Summer Hathaway]

79. No one is claiming

that by 'offering' chained CPI, Obama is making the GOP look bad.

What is making them 'look bad' is their refusal of the offer - a refusal of something they've been drooling over for years - on the basis that it comes from a Democratic President.

[Marr]

81. I'm sorry, really-- but that's even more absurd.

Republicans can-- indeed, already are-- pronouncing themselves the saviors of Social Security for blocking this budget. Are they sincere? Of course not. But when was the last time that mattered in politics?

If you can look at this and think the president is the one gaining politically, then I don't know what to tell you. No one is reading it that way, apart from the president's most hardcore fans on this site.

This offer is going to devastate Democrats in the next election.

[Summer Hathaway]

82. "No one is reading it that way ...

... apart from the president's most hardcore fans on this site."

The discussions on this site are in no way reflective of the real world - and haven't been for quite some time.

It's like the people here who insist that "no one approves of this President doing such-and-such" the day before his approval ratings go up.

[Marr]

83. Which would back up my point.

I didn't say that, out of the people on this site, only a small number are reading it as a win for the president. I said that, in the national dialogue (such as I've observed this week), the only people I've seen reading this as a win for the president are a small number of dedicated fans on this site.

[quakerboy]

84. Im sure the voters will be real upset with the GOP

if they refuse to vote for a bill that would cut Social security.

Man, they sure will have egg on their faces.

[Summer Hathaway]

86. And where does that refusal leave the Republicans?

Think. It. Through.

If they cast themselves in the role of 'saviors of SS', it means they can't pursue any of the detrimental changes to it they've been trying to implement for decades without immediately outing themselves as the opportunistic hypocrites they are.

It would also mean angering their base - who they've spent decades convincing that the SS system is an evil 'entitlement' that needs to be done away with.

This notion of the GOP being seen as the protectors of SS - given their long history of attempting to gut it, privatize it, utterly destroy it - is too laughable for words.

[quakerboy]

89. Right where they are right now, except stronger

It means they suddenly have cover for making detrimental changes to SS. Doing so is now Bipartisan.

It means now they can say "this change we want to make, it isn't destroying SS, its making it stronger. Look, even the bluest president ever, Obama, agrees with us". And suddenly have credibility saying it.

This was dumb. It was an easily avoidable massively damaging blunder on the part of the president.

[Summer Hathaway]

92. Sorry, but this discussion is ridiculous.

How do they have 'cover' for making detrimental changes to SS if they are campaigning on (as some here allege they will) having refused to accept chained CPI in order to protect SS?

"Yeah, we fought tooth-and-nail against that chained CPI thing - but now we're going to pursue much deeper cuts than CPI would have resulted in."

That makes sense. Sure.

Or maybe they can go with we were against the SS program, and then we were for it, and now we're against it again.

Obama (or any other president) putting something on the table during a negotiation process is not even remotely the same as having agreed with it. Negotiation means offering something you DON'T agree with, in order to prompt the other side to accept something THEY don't agree with.

Of course, in this specific instance, the fact that the GOP will not accept ANYTHING Obama proposes - even the very things they claim to want - demonstrates their lack of good faith in the negotiation process overall.

And that lack of good faith being demonstrated for all to see is the name of this game.

[quakerboy]

94. You are wrong on all counts except the first

This is a ridiculous discussion.

1) have you ever noticed a republican having any problem lying, cheating, or decieving?

They will be more than happy to vote Obamas bill down due to tax increases(or just to spite Obama), claim to have done it to protect Social Security, and then come back with a senate and house majority 2 years later and pass the same thing or worse while claiming to be doing it to protect social security.

And most of the press will be on their side through the entire thing. Its not a fair nor balanced system. We benefit when we can prove them unmitigated liars. We hurt ourselves when we give them the kernel of truth to built their lies on.

2) Negotiation is not offering something you dont agree with. Thats like walking into a car dealer and offering them 20% over sticker, but only if they remove the windshield and take off the warranty. Negotiation generally is each side saying here's what *I* want, and then coming to some agreement thats not quite either, but both sides can agree on.

Unfortunately "good faith" is not on display. At least no more than every day since Obama became president. Republicans hate him. Anyone paying the least bit of attention is fully aware of that. I would be willing to bet my last dwindling few dollars that there isnt a single person who has been/will be elucidated on that point by this fiasco. We all know it already. If that is why the president has done this, he is really really out of touch, and has just made a huge blunder, which he needs to fix ASAP

Obama going back on his word, in regards to a terribly important (and popular) program is on display. That's the part that will be remembered.

[Summer Hathaway]

96. As I said, this discussion is ridiculous.

And your analogy of "Negotiation is not offering something you dont agree with. Thats like walking into a car dealer and offering them 20% over sticker, but only if they remove the windshield and take off the warranty" is demonstrative of just how ridiculous it is.

[HangOnKids]

80. If you are gonna use a poker analogy

Please know it is a straight flush. George Strait is a country singer and I don't have any clue if he plays poker.

[cliffordu]

85. Zee shpeling police arrive and

Round up the unusual suspects

I'm blaming the iPhone and my chubby thumbs

[Auntie Bush]

107. Agreed...He's playing poker with a bunch of selfish, evil, dumb bunnies!

SS will NOT get cut! I'm not worrying and I'd be screwed if it was...I NEED every penny. He's out foxing the clowns in fox clothes. He's going down in history as the most conniving/clever president ever. Not to worry. PBO would never let us down...have faith everyone! NOT going to happen. Betcha $10,000!

[madokie]

6. If he hadn't put this in his budget proposal

the pukes in congress would be including it in their, who writes the budget anyway, budget. By including CPI in his proposal he ensured it won't be touched by the pukes. They're against any and everything this man is for. Sooner people wake to that fact the better DU will be. This place gets fucking nuts sometimes and this is one of those times.
Lately I spend more time elsewhere due to this shit than I do here. You'd think the sky is falling, fucking chicken littles

[cliffordu]

9. Yep - he included it as an inoculation.

[madokie]

14. Without a fucking doubt

President knows what he's doing.
Once again he proves he has more than two brain cells, some here I'm not so sure of anymore

[Demo_Chris]

33. Claiming it is an innoculation is like an arsonist claiming he is preventing future fires.

It doesn't innoculate against anything. Just the opposite. Now the GOP has a Democratic President on record saying that Social Security is too expensive, that it needs to be cut, and that recipients get too much money.

And you are trying to spin this like it's some marvellous trick, and it's silly.

[Nay]

67. And he's on record with the false belief that SS contributes to the deficit. That's what burns

me up as much as anything. STOP validating Pub talking points for some specious 'bluffing' maneuver! Just stop!

[Marr]

74. +1, Yep-- this excuse-making has become a bad joke.

It's just ridiculous at this point.

[cliffordu]

133. Well.. Your post is both educational and enlightening.

Who could want more?

[cliffordu]

16. What you said

[sabrina 1]

20. I was told by his supporters that he included it to show the public how awful Republicans are.

I was also told a few weeks that I was 'hysterical' because he 'has NOT included it in the budget, he's just playing games with Republicans, I was told to wait until he ACTUALLY included in the budget before falling apart at the seams.

I was told that he put this in the budget, I believe it was his very own spokesman, Carney who told me this, 'because the Republicans WANTED him to put it there.

Your excuse is a new one. It's getting so crowded, all the attempts to explain the inexplicable. But nice try, at least it is new although no more convincing than all the others.

[madokie]

23. sorry

I just stated fact, no excuse there, just fact.
Go on back to your outrage if it makes you feel better. In the mean time I want no part of it

[Summer Hathaway]

30. Sounds like you've been

"being told" an awful lot of late.

I think that may be part of the problem.

You'd better believe it.

[cliffordu]

39. I saw what you did there....

[sabrina 1]

78. I think so too, considering who told me why this president put this awful proposal in the budget.

It was WH spokesperson, Carney. He said the 'Republicans asked for it'. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the WH had listened to the over two million Americans who signed and handed over a petition asking them NOT to include it??

If the WH spokesperson is lying, well I have no way of judging that. But that is what he said.

The new politics seems to be that if you get elected by Democrats you do what the opposition wants when you win and you ignore those who elected you.

You'd better talk to the WH, because you are correct, who told me IS part of the problem. A big part as we continue to learn.

[Summer Hathaway]

95. No one is lying to you, Sabrina

To the contrary, Carney was quite straightforward with the truth. And it IS the truth.

The Republicans asked for chained CPI - and what they asked for was included in the proposal.

This is part of every negotiation process; you include something the other side wants and they, in return, offer to accept something you've offered as part of the package that they DON'T want.

That's what happens in a proposal/counter proposal process - which works well if both sides are (a) acting in good faith, and (b) are actually trying to come to a compromise acceptable to all concerned.

Of course, in this particular case, we know the GOP are neither acting in good faith nor trying to come to a compromise. And they are now demonstrating that in front of the nation.

Obama has said he is willing to compromise with the GOP. How seriously would he be taken as "willing to compromise" if he then came up with a proposal that was 100% what he wants, and 0% of what the other side wants?

Jesus, this isn't rocket science.

And BTW, if people here would actually educate themselves as to what else Obama included as part of the package - increased monies for programs that benefit the middle-class and the poor, along with increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations, etc. - they might just learn something.

To hear some on DU tell it, Obama's entire budget proposal consists of a yellow sticky with the words "chained CPI" on it - and nothing else.

[sabrina 1]

102. Republicans did ask him to sacrifice SS, no one is calling that a lie.

Democrats by the millions however, asked him not to do what Republicans were asking.

Has he addressed those people, without whom he would not be President?

It is worse imo that he is doing the bidding of Republicans and ignoring Democrats. How is that supposed to make us feel any better?

Republicans' request was a joke, SS had zero to do with the Deficit and he should simply have laughed at them, because cutting SS could not be a more ridiculous way to deal with something it had nothing to do with.

How about he cut some of the subsidies of the Oil Corps,or all the other Big Corporations that are outsourcing jobs and hiding their fortunes overseas to avoid taxes??

The logic here is stunning.

Ask yourself this. If this was not a Democrat, what would your reaction be?

[Summer Hathaway]

104. Do you understand how negotiation towards compromise works?

It doesn't seem that you do.

It means each side giving something and getting something. It does NOT mean making an offer and a counter-offer where both sides say, "I get everything I want, and you get nothing."

The very idea of compromise is abhorrent to the GOP. They think it's a dirty word, and prefer to act like stubborn children who want everything their way, and have shown they are willing to act like children in that regard. That doesn't mean we should adopt their stance and act as stubborn children ourselves.

Hopefully we are better than that as a party, and we have a president who is, as always, acting like the grown-up in the room for all to see.

Again, not rocket science.

Offering to compromise is NOT "doing the bidding of the Republicans" - not even close.

And if you think that Obama's proposal is a result of "ignoring Democrats", you obviously haven't read it. It contains all kinds of things Democrats have wanted for years - which you would already know, if you were the least bit interested in educating yourself on the matter.

[sabrina 1]

105. I understand it very well. You give a LITTLE and they give a LOT if you are a good negotiator and

compromiser. Especially if you are the winner of the election and you hold the Senate.

One thing no Democrat is ever willing to offer is cuts to SS. That is OFF the table, and if they do, they reveal themselves. And they cause huge damage to the Dem Party.

Put it this way, most people I know right now will not vote for a single candidate who votes for this budget, left or right. This was the line that should never have been crossed.

What that means is the many Democrats who might feel obligated to go along with this proposal will lose their seats.

If I wanted Republicans to get what they wanted, I would support Republican candidates.

We know the president isn't particularly fond of the Left. He appears more comfortable with Wall St bankers and his Republican friends. But we overlooked that and elected him anyhow, because we are adults.

As someone said lately, there appear to be no adults in DC.

No Democrat compromises with SS. Period. There are no arguments about that.

[Summer Hathaway]

106. In other words

you DON'T understand how the process works, and you HAVEN'T read what the proposal includes.

"We know the president isn't particularly fond of the Left. He appears more comfortable with Wall St bankers and his Republican friends."

Pure bullshit - and I think you are actually smart enough to KNOW it's BS.

Again, you might spend some time actually reading the proposal, instead of being told what to think by the hair-on-fire-brigade here on DU.

[sabrina 1]

113. SS had nothing to do with the Deficit. Any Democrat who perpetuates that Republican lie

deserves all the criticism he is getting. The WH appears to be shocked, apparently their thinking that if he offered Republicans SS on a platter they would see he was a 'serious' person, he didn't much care what the people who elected him thought and has not responded to the millions of people who asked him not to do this.

His chess game has, as predicted by most of us, back-fired and they are stunned. Republicans refused cuts to SS and worse, they are using it against him and the Dems who will be running in 2014.

I call this the very worst kind of politics, a failure beyond belief. To hand your enemy the very weapon they will use to defeat you???

And it started right away. I believe we are up to about six Republicans now slamming the president publicly for 'hurting seniors'.

If I want to score points, I don't take the advice of people I know I cannot trust, such as, if it was politics and I am a Democrat, that would be Republicans.

They thought the Republicans were trust-worthy and that if they gave them what they wanted, they would give back something. Instead Republicans turned the table on them and now they are left trying to explain this great strategy they supposedly had. They are yelling to be heard 'but we did not want to hurt seniors, it was the Republicans who asked us to do so'.

I am sorry, but if you call that good strategy when the results are so disastrous, we have to disagree.

[Summer Hathaway]

115. "SS had nothing to do with the Deficit."

That's not late breaking news - to anyone, least of all the WH.

"The WH appears to be shocked ..."

That's right up there with "some people are saying ..."

" I believe we are up to about six Republicans now slamming the president publicly for 'hurting seniors'."

Wow! The Republicans are spinning something Obama did into a 'victory' for their side. What a shocker! I bet that's never happened before, and will never happen again. It is a truly unique occurrence in today's political environment.

"They thought the Republicans were trust-worthy and that if they gave them what they wanted, they would give back something."

Uh, no, Sabrina. No one thinks the Republicans are trustworthy, nor did anyone believe they would give something back. That's why the offer of chained CPI was put on the table in the first place, because Obama knew they'd never accept it (a) because they won't accept ANYTHING that he proposes, and (b) because they'd never accept it as part of the package that included all kinds of things the GOP will NEVER find acceptable.

It is the very fact that "they won't give something back" that needed to be demonstrated to the American populace. And it now has been. It is one thing to say, "The other side will not negotiate in good faith." It is far more effective to SHOW that they are not doing so.

"They are yelling to be heard 'but we did not want to hurt seniors, it was the Republicans who asked us to do so'."

I've heard no one yelling any such thing - aside from DU's hair-on-fire brigade, who tend to do more yelling than thinking.

Yes, we must agree to disagree on this point - just as we totally agree with each other on other points. Such is the world of politics.

[Marr]

141. You know, it's one thing when you just spout nonsense...

it's another when you do it with a haughty, 'you don't understand the real world' attitude.

This is not how negotiation works-- especially not in politics.

You begin a negotiation with your ideal offer. Then you let your opponent ask for a concession. You then either trade something or you do not. Either way, you let them ask for the unpopular things, and you make them fight for every inch. Obama has consistently begun every "negotiation" with his supposed maximum concession package... from which he concedes more.

No intelligent person would operate that way, and I do not think Obama is stupid. The fact is that he's not actually opposed to many of the things to which he claims to be opposed.

I'd love to sell you a car.

[Summer Hathaway]

144. Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

On pretty much everything.

But just let me add that attributing a "haughty, you don't understand the real world attitude" to me, or any other Obama supporter, is the height of hypocrisy coming from anyone on this board.

We are constantly told by fellow posters here on DemocraticUnderground that we are naive idol-worshippers who are just too stupid to recognize that Obama is a secret Republican, a Manchurian candidate, a corporate 'plant' bought and paid for, etc.

I doubt I'd ever buy a car from you. If your knowledge of vehicles is on a par with your knowledge of the budget proposal process, I wouldn't trust you to find me a decent skateboard.

[Marr]

146. You can disagree all you like, but you're just wrong.

Negotiation is not watercolor painting. It's an established process, and all answers are not equally valid.

If you're truly that troubled about the accusations of naivety and personality cultism, stop and consider the fact that you've been trying to redefine what negotiation means in order to make one politician look better. And that you've actually been trying to argue that a Democratic president's offer to cut SS is somehow a brilliant ploy to protect Social Security.

[Summer Hathaway]

147. I have redefined nothing.

On the other hand, I have seen a lot of redefining here on DU, along with the usual revisionist history.

It is all too tiresome to even respond to anymore.

DU is now as reflective of real life politics as FreeRepublic is reflective of Mensa International.

[magellan]

7. If it's never going to happen then why offer it?

What's the point? Aside from making a broad swath of Americans scared and angry at him, I mean. That mission's been accomplished.

[madokie]

15. He made sure it won't be happening

Why can't you see this is my question

[magellan]

24. Does the budget not have to be passed by the Senate?

Isn't the Senate controlled by our reliable Dems?

Barring that, doesn't Obama have veto power?

Never mind that the moment the House Repubs proposed it, our reliable Dems would call them on it just as vociferously as the Repubs are doing to Obama now, ensuring that even if it got out of the House, the Repubs would never live it down with voters?

Your rationalization "he made sure it won't be happening" doesn't wash. There was no way it was ever going to happen unless Obama and the senate Dems let it happen. Hence no reason to offer it.

[madokie]

25. You can lead a horse to water

but you can't make it drink.
Have a good outrage, you deserve it.
Peace
In the mean time I'm going back to bed

[magellan]

28. Ditto with your horse and water

And rest well while you can. As the WH learned, most Americans don't do multi-dimensional chess.

[Summer Hathaway]

118. But most Americans

are fully capable of recognizing who is the adult in the room, and who is the stubborn child.

BTW, the "multi-dimensional chess" analogy is only used by those who think "King ME!" is part of the game.

[magellan]

124. Sure they are

They're also fully capable of recognizing who set the table.

The "I trust Obama knows what he's doing" line and its variations reek of "loyalty to King before all else". You're welcome to your devotion, and you can keep it.

[Summer Hathaway]

125. The fact that you

and others here see supporting this president as being "loyalty to the king before or else" is childish in the extreme.

That's why so many of the adults have left this site, and why so many continue to leave.

Childish behavior is only mildly amusing to a point. But eventually it becomes far too annoying to be dealt with by people who want to actually discuss political issues, without being continually interrupted by those at the kiddie table, whose only response to everything is you're just an idol worshiper, a cheerleader, an Obamabot, etc.

Sadly, noisy children are too immature to recognize that when their only response to those who disagree with them is labeling them or name-calling, they've clearly demonstrated that they have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation.

So you're welcome to your childishness, and you can keep it. In fact, you'd be well-advised to cling to it, as it is apparent you have nothing else.

[magellan]

127. I find it amusing

...that you go on about "adults" and "children", but accuse others of name-calling.

[Summer Hathaway]

129. Recognizing the behavior of children

as contrasted with the behavior of adults is not name-calling.

It is simply what it is - a recognition of behavior that is attributable to mature adults and behavior that is associated with immature children.

Sadly, this site has been taken over by noisy children, who, in their immaturity, actually believe that sticking their tongues out at the adults they don't like is somehow a valuable contribution to the discussion at the grown-up table.

[magellan]

130. And more name-calling

You really aren't doing yourself any favors.

A shame no one can go back and witness you settling down the "noisy children" who were "sticking their tongues out at the adults" during Bush**'s terms.

[Summer Hathaway]

134. That's the point.

During the Bush years, the adults were still posting here.

[magellan]

135. And they're still here

...being just as critical.

What was your handle back then? I'd like to see where you told DUers to stop criticizing Bush** so much.

[Summer Hathaway]

136. As I said at the outset

Most of those who want to discuss things like adults have left; more leave every day.

What's left here, for the most part, are tantrum-throwing children and trolls.

[magellan]

137. Not willing to share examples of your previous mother-henning, then?

That's fine, Summer. You and I will just have to disagree about your estimation of the majority DUers, many I certainly recognize from those times.

As for the hypocrisy of your complaint about name-calling, that stands on its own.

[Summer Hathaway]

138. Calling a child a 'child'

is not name-calling. It is identifying an age group or level of maturity.

There are a few adults still left here - or am I name-calling when I identify them as 'adults'?

[magellan]

140. It would seem that the vast majority of DUers you accuse of being "children"

...and trolls (edit) still get to post here, which means they haven't violated DU's TOS:

But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

If you don't like what people are saying or how they're saying it, put them on ignore. Or ask Skinner for tips on starting your own "adult" discussion forum. Good luck.

[Summer Hathaway]

142. Haha!

As you can see by my post count, I don't spend much time on this site. So I'm really not too concerned with what goes on here.

But just on the topic of violating the TOS, that's another thing that's become non-existent.

Just recently, a very prolific (and fairly new) DUer had their sock puppet's account shut down by Skinner. His reason for the PPR was that the new account was "obviously the sock puppet of ____ (and named the DUer) established for the sole purpose of circumventing the limits on alerting that are part of the site's software."

Skinner's own words. The 'owner' of the sock puppet is still here, continues to rack up more 'hides' than most people, and often bitterly complains about how people are abusing the alert system as a means of trying to "shut her up".

So much for the TOS. It has become meaningless.

[magellan]

149. For someone who's not too concerned with what goes on here

...you do a lot of whinging about it. You disapprove of the people, you disapprove of how the rules are applied. Why do you even post here?

I'll give you one less reason. Adios.

[Summer Hathaway]

151. Truth be told

I only signed up here for the shits-'n'-giggles.

It's been amusing to watch the easily-led go from "Obama is the greatest prez evah" to "Obama is the devil incarnate" from one day to the next - sometimes from one thread to the next.

It's been more than entertaining to see DUers declare RW trolls as the "true voice of progressive ideals" - only to deny any such adoration when the troll is finally outed as what he was all along, a RWer from the start. You'd Better Believe It.

It has been laughable to observe that the "TOS" rules are graciously dispensed with in order to keep even the worst offenders from being PPR'd in a desperate attempt to hold onto whatever membership is left.

My short time here has been an enlightening experience on so many levels.

[magellan]

153. Then you're getting what you want

Quit whining.

[Summer Hathaway]

160. Ain't whining

just laughing.

But I understand your confusion. A lot of people here don't know the difference between the two either.

[Sheepshank]

75. Perhpas putting aside the 'poker' analogy and read some on negotiations

There is an art to negotiation and putting namby pamby items up for discussion will accomplish nothing.

Look at what has happened so far. The Reps are now claiming to be the saviours and godsend of SS. They are faux outraged over the discussion of SS (while secretly rubbing their hands with glee). So either the Republicans will NOT vote for this thing because anything Obama puts n the table is auto-rejected. Or the Republican will NOT vote for this thing because they are the new found caretakers.

Negotiations, like haggling, can have the entire landscape change in a millisecond because someone was painted into a corner.

[magellan]

77. Sure

Although, I'm hard-pressed to understand how it helps us to make a very large and broad swath of voters angry at the Dem president and feel betrayed by the party. Maybe you'd like to explain that clever part of the negotiations since you claim to be well-read on the topic?

Also, there's absolutely NOTHING Obama has done here that "innoculates" or otherwise protects SS from the Repubs this time, or in future. On the contrary. Now that the Dem president has touched the Third Rail, it's sure to happen again.

[Sheepshank]

87. but Dem Presidents have touched and proposed changes in the past

that is one of the misconceptions. Even as recently as Clinton, SS has been used as a negotiating tool.

SS as it was implemented was for men only, was must reduced and restricted...it's changed and morphed and will continue to do so. To pretend that it wsa set in stone at in inception and should remain so inperpetuity is unrealistic. Even Dem rank and file feel that changes would be good...such as raising the cap so higher incomes pay more into the system, or reducing payouts based on the amount of investment income is available to the recipient.

Not everyone in the party feels betrayed. There has been a ground force at DU that has decided just mentioning the words Social Security is a sell out and have posted to that effect over and over and over. It's unrealisic to crow over how correct they are that Obama hates the poor and elderly (while clearly nothing has even happened), but likely designed to be seen an anit-Obama groundswell for a reason.

Dont' get me wrong, I don't want to see any cuts in SS COLA and I don't see anything wrong with letting Obama know about the Dem priorities, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on here lately, is an exercise in blogging futility...it accomplishes little more that to discourage readers. I don't come here to get discouraged. I come here to find out how to make my voice heard.

[magellan]

99. If you're talking about the negotiations between Clinton and Gingrich

...my understanding is those were behind closed doors. (I wasn't living here at the time so can only go by what I read.) Clinton didn't tell the public he was working on negotiating the partial privatization of SS...and he dropped it when the Lewinsky scandal bit as he didn't want to take another hit in the polls.

That was a huge betrayal, and if the scenario is accurate then thank goodness for cigars and blue dresses.

The difference here is Obama has come right out, twice, and said he's including cuts to SS in his "grand bargain". And we're supposed to feel better about it because it's just a proposal, and the Repubs definitely won't bite.

And then the WH comes out yesterday and effectively says, "No, no - Obama did this because the Repubs asked him to." As if the idea of Obama acceding to the drooling Repubs' demand - regardless of whether they accept it - is supposed to make us feel better.

People like me are left wondering who's in charge and why we should trust any of them. Talk about discouraging.

[Sheepshank]

121. The statement that Dem Presidents have not touched SS is an outright lie

and that is a fact.

Your clarification and editorial doesn't change that fact.

I don't care what the difference is or what the circumstances are...SS has be touched and discussed and the reality is that even todays DEM constituency wants to touch SS and change the nature/demographics of the recipients.

[magellan]

123. And it isn't something I personally said

So arguing that point with me is a waste of time.

[Sheepshank]

156. As was your initial response, not acknoweldging what I said, but changing the subject.

so there you have it...the old moving the goal posts tactics.

[magellan]

158. Again, I never stated that no Dem president had touched SS before

...although I can see where I might have explained myself better. I said "now that the Dem president has touched the Third Rail, it's sure to happen again", referring to Obama's very public and unnecessary proposal, and how I have no doubt that open attacks on SS from both parties will continue. It's a slow chipping away that won't cease until privatization occurs.

[Marr]

143. This isn't happening in a vacuum.

Obama's offer to cut Social Security is going to cripple the Democrats in 2014. One year away.

Why give him even a minor tax increase on the wealthy for a method of bleeding SS that the Republicans have never been all that hot on anyway? Why not just beat the Democrats over the head with their offer to starve granny? They can make big political gains, and then, perhaps, push their own (no doubt more draconian) attack on Social Security later.

I really don't know how anyone can continue to claim Obama's offer to cut Social Security was some kind of brilliant move for protecting Social Security. It just reeks of wishful thinking and willful blindness.

[grahamhgreen]

12. Then why not propose a 94% tax on the hoading class instead?

Because you want to destroy SS.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. no it's not going to happend - because even suggesting it causes an uproar. Imagine what the powers

that be would do - if they thought no one would object.

Putting this on the table nonetheless suggest that there is something right and sound about trying to reduce benefits for the elderly and the disabled at the very time that more and more elderly and disabled are living under ever increasing financial duress. The President should be looking for ways to increase benefits for the elderly and disabled financed by a mechanism that is sustainable and fair that recognizes the simple reality of the ever increasing wealth gap that must be reversed if national social cohesions rooted in a viable social contract are to survive..

[TreasonousBastard]

22. They won't...

Seems as though the mass of those complaining are not on SS, haven't read anything but opinion pieces, and have no real knowledge, direct or otherwise, about just what's going on.

They don't know about people like me, who if the chained CPI happens, will see maybe a $5 increase instead of the huge $9.56 increase. This means if I live to 80, my COLA will be reduced by less than $1,000 over the rest of my life.

They don't know about those statisticians and analysts who calculate that the present COLA is a gross overpayment in light of actual inflation. Yes, that sounds strange, but so is the idea that you can live on $1000 a month or less in most places in the country. That barely pays the rent in trailer park around here. Putting in a realistic floor would be highly impractical but a much better idea. Subsidized rent and expanding food stamps would be easier and far more effective.

And, there's no guarantee anyone will get a COLA anyway, and in several years there was none.

They don't know about CPI-E which was designed for SS recipients, but put aside for a while. Maybe forever.

They don't know that chained CPI and CPI-W have been getting closer and they might be the same in a few years.

They don't know that the CPI market basket is irregularly changed anyway, so even if we keep CPI-W there are fewer guarantees than they think.

And, lastly, there are 30 million baby boomers entering old age and SS and they can make all sorts of demands on Congress-- like what has been done can easily be undone.

And, yeah, people around here really think it will happen.

But, we can't go a month around here without a good hair on fire scare. Must be lot of bald DUers out there.

[TheKentuckian]

26. You're lying because you are crying. Hair on fire would seem to be a requirement to set the scene.

Plus, you're half ass rationalizing if it doesn't happen in the same statement declaring it impossible.

Spinning like a top, trying to play wise but making every excuse and rationalization

Wiping and dangling away for somebody trying to sell you out over and over again. You are a fucking number in some sets of statistics to someone with no track record and a relative newcomer.

[stanchaz]

27. All it takes for it to "happen"...is for good men to do nothing

No matter what you call it: A cut is a cut is a CUT. And it will HURT.
Those who retire today would get $650 less a year when they are 75 ....and over $1,100 less a year when they reach age 85. This, when more than two-thirds of senior beneficiaries rely on Social Security for over HALF their income. Maybe the President needs to revise his stump speech to “”if you work hard, and play by the rules” .....then you’ll get shafted!
Come on, Mr. Obama: Do you REALLY want to throw Grandma off the train?
Sir, do you REALLY want to throw disabled vets receiving benefits...under the bus?
Is THIS the Barack Obama that we voted for? ...the Barack we BELIEVED in?


This is not a "Grand Bargain” , Sir. Your chained C.P.I. proposal
(which decreases annual Social Security & Disabled Veteran Cost of Living COLAS)
is nothing but a GRAND BETRAYAL.
It’s a betrayal of the promises, a betrayal of the ideals, and a betrayal of the programs that Democrats have fought for ....long and hard ....over the years.
The elderly, struggling thru their final years on earth --they deserve better than this!
Those disabled by war or disease -- they deserve better than this!
And those blameless children and orphans receiving benefits --they deserve better than this!
And we --we as a society-- surely deserve better than this.
The annual COLA is critically important to millions --and not only to retirees. The administration’s budget cuts cost-of-living increases for current and future Social Security beneficiaries by $130 billion over 10 years, and much more in future years. Lowering the presently insufficient COLA... with a "Chained C.P.I. " - is a discredited and dishonest way of calculating annual cost-of-living increases that does not keep up with actual costs, and eats into benefits of recipients. Switching to a chained CPI will permanently cut COLAS , and the longer you live, the worse it gets. Call it what it is - plain and simple: a cut. People will suffer. Real people. Real suffering. Real pain.
And what’s worse is the fact is that Social Security doesn’t contribute a dime to the deficit. It is funded by payroll taxes, and currently enjoys a $2.7 trillion surplus, enough to fund the program without any changes until 2033. Social Security is a regressive flat tax, like a retail tax.  It is the same rate for everyone regardless of income, and at present it is it is capped at $113,700. But...on income above that level,the rich don’t have to pay Social Security tax. There’s a simple solution to making it even more solvent: Raise -oe ELIMINATE_ the cap on the Social Security payroll tax for higher income earners. And secondly, pass the immigration reform bill, bringing 12 million legal, younger workers into the system.
Don't make me ASHAMED of being a lifelong Democrat,and your supporter, Mr. President --
by compromising away your basic principles, your promises, and your fundamental ideals.
REAL Democrats don’t cut Social Security. Heck, they CREATED it. When one out of four profitable U.S. corporations doesn’t pay a penny in taxes, ask THEM to do their fair share first- before you even THINK of cutting Social Security! Don’t try to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, and “the least of these”. Don’t use the old, the young, the poor, and the disabled as pawns in these political games ..while the super-rich continue to laugh all the way to the bank, and their off shore tax havens. That’s not compromise or compassion - it’s capitulation. It’s immoral, shameful, and wrong to ask senior citizens, veterans and the disabled to pay for the greed and mistakes of the top 1% -- at a time when corporations and the wealthiest are not paying their fair share of taxes, despite soaring profits. For the debt we have comes from a decade of tax cuts for the wealthy, unlimited spending on foreign wars, and a recession caused by unregulated Wall Street speculation and greed. Are we to then punish the victims even more, America? Is that what we’ve come to?
Any person in Congress who votes for this proposal will live to regret it -and remember it- because WE will not forget it: ....NOT in the primaries ......NOT in he media .... NOT at the fund raisers ...and most definitely- NOt in the polling booth on Election Day!
Unfortunately, you haven’t shown yourself to be much of a fighter, Mr. President. 
Well, you've got a HELL of a fight on your hands now, from your own Party, -unless you come to your senses. Year after year, you keep on trying to “compromise” towards the so-called “middle”- while they openly laugh and jeer at you, and keep moving the goalposts to the right. Again, ...and again, ...and again! Stop --- and stand your ground, Mr. Obama! BE the real change that you wanted, and promised. Make us proud and hopeful ....not ashamed, duped, and abandoned. You should be rallying Americans to protect and strengthen our already inadequate Social Security system. For the real crisis that we face isn't that Social Security benefits are too generous; it is that more and more Americans lack the means for a secure retirement. Drop this misguided Chained C.P.I. proposal, Mr. President. For you are better than this. WE are better than this! We cannot -we will not- allow our Social Security system to be chipped away and dismantled inch by inch.

[Summer Hathaway]

31. If I had a buck

for every time the panic button has been hit on this site over the past four years, I'd be spending my retirement on my yacht, cruising the Mediterranean.

And any reference to "multi-dimensional chess" is a tip-off that the poster still hasn't mastered the intricacies of one-dimensional checkers.

GREAT POST!!! K&R!!!!!

[cliffordu]

41. Well....

(In my best Elvis voice)

Thankyouverymuchandgodbless

[daybranch]

32. I agree

the president has united everyone on the rational side of the aisle. He has also put into hands of republicans what they cannot afford to be identified with. Did you ever see Boehner and O'Connell so quickly say no to the offer of benefit cuts? it reminds me of that kids game hot potato, hot potato. It is a great idea until you find out it is too hot to handle. Or that cute kitten your daughter brought home and you found out it was a baby skunk. I appreciate a President that lets himself be labelled all kinds of vile things by his opposition and then hugs his opponents saying lets go for it when he knows full well they cannot afford to agree with him or be seen as vile too, and they certainly cannot afford to do the vile thing in public they intended to do when they had majorities in each house and the Presidency. Thank President Obama. I have sometimes questioned his grasp of economics but I am schooled once again that all economics is political and none can be implemented without a good political game. And has Obama got game! So it is not just never fear, it is thank you that we should say.

[JHB]

34. "Yearly Handout"?

[cliffordu]

76. Yeah the fucking COLA

They didn't give out for a couple of years...I really could have used that $$$$...congress treats it like a handout.

[bananas]

116. Says a lot about where he stands, doesn't it?

Telling people to shut up about their "handouts" being stolen from them.

[dtom67]

35. I thought the same thing about Freedom of Speech and the Right to Free assembly.

Then we lost those rights.
_

[pipi_k]

49. What?

OMG!!!!

when did all that happen?

You mean to tell me that people can't criticize the government in public?

And people can't assemble for a peaceful demonstration?

[Occulus]

100. That's either a lame attempt at sarcasm or an admission of life under a rock

You do recall Free Speech Zones and the literally unprovoked but nationally-coordinated police attacks against OWS protesters....

.....don't you?

[truebluegreen]

110. +1000 n/t

[sendero]

36. What part of...

... even offering it damages the party do you people not understand? It may not happen this time, but the Democratic brand has DEFINITELY been tarnished and IT WILL BE BACK if it doesn't make it this time.

[cali]

37. are you being deliberately obtuse?

Just curious.

[liberalla]

38. I see it the same way you and madokie do...

and feel confident that SS won't be damaged by Obama.

BUT,

if there was no outrage, and people didn't freak out--I'd be freakin' out.

The freak out is necessary and part of the play.

(the way I see it)

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Cliff says 'if your friend is bluffing in poker and you know it, tell everyone in the room'

Which I do not see as all that wise. If you think it is a bluff and you support it, you should play your ascribed part in the bluffing scene, help sell the bluff. Tipping the hand is just stupid.

[boston bean]

40. oh yeah, it's great to have democrats filibustering a democratic presidents bill.

WTF. The optics of that are off the charts!

Why the hell did he put any democrat in this position.

[cliffordu]

42. Don't you think the Dems in Congress ever talk to the Prez?

Does he operate in a vacuum??

[WilliamPitt]

46. It. Already. Fucking. Happened.

Whether or not Obama's budget ever sees the light of day, the fact of the offer is out there for all to see. It *will* impact the '14 elections, especially when the GOP casts itself as the defenders of SS and Obama's people have to spend time arguing, "Yeah, it was in our budget, but we didn't mean it, trust us."

Bone up on those coping skills. You live in a world where a Democratic President put Social Security on the table during a deficit debate, even though Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit...except for the fact that the SS fund was plundered for 30 years, and now the bastards don't want to pay back what they took, a fact Obama seems comfortable with given HIS OWN BUDGET.

"Not gonna happen"?

It fucking happened.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Well said Will.

And belated congratulations on the arrival of the young Ms Pitt. A lucky infant and lucky parents I wish you all the best.

[WilliamPitt]

50. Thank you!

[boston bean]

48. I don't know about you, but I liked it when

republicans were the ones getting harangued for suggesting changes to SS, like privatization.

Yet, they have successfully put the shoe on the other foot. By they, I mean the democrats.

[VOX]

59. Leave it to a new dad to see the big picture...

And thanks for lending your voice on behalf of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, as Howard Dean puts it.

Big congrats to you and your wife on the new addition. Among myriad other gifts, you have the pleasure of perceiving the world anew by witnessing your baby daughter's encounter with everyday life for the first time. It's a terrific contact high!

[bigtree]

61. you act as if Democrats are defenseless to block this in the legislature

. . . or that there's some bandwagon now to enact this provision. Where?

Did you miss the last election where Ryan tried to cast Obama as a threat to SS? What happened to that cynical effort? It doesn't take much for folks out here to understand where the real threat to our social safety nets originate and persist. That's because there's an irrefutable truth to the charge that republicans are intent on dismantling SS and Medicare; there's also an immutable understanding that Democrats are going to be the ones defending, protecting, preserving, and enhancing these programs whenever they are able.

The fact that this President has actually added money and enabled the solvency of SS well into the future in his first term isn't a secret. I'll admit that it's hard to find many who will spend the time to point this out; content, instead to highlight the worst instinct in the president's budget or economic record. Then, they want you to listen to drivel about how doomed we are politically when they can't get up off of their caterwauling over this budget proposal to actually defend the efforts he's made, so far. That would take care of the politics, but I don't really expect folks claiming they're so concerned about the politics to set aside their hair-scorching and lift a finger to set the record straight.

Ask voters a year from now which party is going to protect and enhance SS and Medicare and you'll almost certainly find that a cast-away budget proposal from the WH doesn't mean squat.

Do you really believe Democrats are going to let themselves be saddled with that proposal if they disagree? How hard is it to just say so, if they don't like chained cpi? The last election and common sense should tell you that this proposal won't give republicans the cover they want for some cynical attempt to claim Obama or the Democrats are threatening the programs they, themselves, are pledged to destroy; not just reduce the level of benefit.

Is it too much to expect Democrats who have never touched SS cuts with a ten foot pole to be able to manage to avoid accountability for the WH's foolish politics? I don't think it is. You really have to push the limits of reality to get there.

[WilliamPitt]

63. You're missing the point.

The fact that the proposal was in the budget in the first place is the catastrophe. Leaving other Democrats with the duty to block a SS-cut proposal offered by a Democratic president (who was elected on the promise to defend what he now proposes to cut) only augments the catastrophe.

[bigtree]

69. I can't disagree that it just sucks to have to push off of your own party's president

. . . but, a catastrophe?

For the life of me, I can't understand why Ryan and the republicans, like the rncc this week, think they can cover their own mercenary attacks on social programs by pointing to a budget proposal that likely won't be touched by ANY prospective Democratic candidate.

Moreover, Ryan's unbelievable strategy of claiming Obama was a threat only brought forth even greater scrutiny of republicans' own destructive agenda.

And, I don't want to sound like I'm too cynical, but I can't help noticing that the donations and appeals from progressive and social program interest organizations are just humming this week. I'm not seeing the talk show blather as a defining measure of a 'catastrophe.' So, neither past or present anecdotal evidence points to some major political fallout over this for Democrats defending against some cynical or selective charge from some opposition pol or pundit.

Like I say, go down the road a bit to the election and tell me if this is providing the cover republicans need to mask their war against the working poor and middle class, and their unflagging defense of the 1%s wealthy tax breaks at the expense of the rest of us.

[Auntie Bush]

108. Bravo bigtree.

Well said and well written. No one will ever think Dems don't want to protect SS. We won't have to splain anything. ReThugs and Obama supporters all know and understand what's going on.

[marions ghost]

66. Damage control time

Big boo boo all right.

C'mon Barack--listen to us that put ya there.

[Nay]

68. Yeah, well said. I'm stunned by the people on DU who cannot see that the offer itself is

problematic, whether or not it is ever implemented.

[Occulus]

88. Here's a hint: they see it VERY WELL.

They understand perfectly why this is a bad idea. They understand every last reason.

If you presume that these people are not now and have never been who and what they claim to be, their responses become a whole whole lot less stunning.

[Nay]

90. True--I can generally suss out the trolls, but sometimes I read somebody who's been here

a while and go "HUH?"

[Number23]

128. "You live in a world where a Democratic President put Social Security on the table during a deficit

Hasn't SS been on the table before? Many, MANY other times? By Democratic presidents, including this one? Have the cuts under Obama ever actually happened yet?

[jazzimov]

159. WHAT happened, Will?

Just because the President included it in his admitted "compromise" budget, the OP is saying it will never pass. Which it won't. The OP said that it will never pass - your post implies that it already has. WRONG.

You also mentioned that "Obama seems comfortable with given HIS OWN BUDGET. " He has already stated that he IS NOT comfortable with it.

WHY did he "put it on the table?" I have read many of your writings, I don't think you are a stupid man. I think you know exactly why he did it.

"It *will* impact the '14 elections"

Yes, it most certainly will. And I think that's why he did it. He put himself up as the "sacrificial lamb" of compromise. The Republicans asked for this, and then they rejected it. That only reinforces them as the party of Opposition. Democratic Senators and Representatives "jumped in" to reject and save it "for the Lower and Middle Class".

You may be correct given the Republican's "spin" historical machine that they could spin this the way you say.

But their "spin machine" seems to be broken. It is no longer resonating except with a very few. I believe that this action will only help us with the 2014 Election. With which we need help - 2014 is an off-year election and stats show that Dem policies show a low turn-out during off-year elections. Perhaps this is the wedge issue we need to GOTV. But enough of speculation:

You refer to speculation, whereas the OP refers to reality. Have any of these laws been passed? No. Are they likely to be passed? No. Therefore, the PO is correct while your post refers to "possibilities" that have not yet passed and there is some question about the probability of the events you describe happening in the first place.

[riqster]

51. "Jerkin the gherkin"

Priceless! I am so stealing.

[fredamae]

52. I Will Happily Exchange

being correct for Extreme embarrassment over being Wrong...

I agree with others--It's Already Happened.
Listen to the sales pitches from MSM--Like O'Donnell, the "guests" appearing for their sales pitches on many of them---many don't talk about it at all-Hell even Stewart and Colbert haven't really "joked" about it...that I've seen, anyway

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. It's already happened. Democrats want to take away your social security.

That's not hyperbole or overstatement. The leader of our party wants to cut social security. The fact that a weird coalition of conservatives and progressives will stop it doesn't undo the damage.

Democrats will take your social security.

If that pisses you off, then it's up to you to get new democrats.

For what it's worth, I saw this coming a long time ago when he picked Austan Goolsbee as an economics adviser.

[Larrylarry]

56. "Democrats want to take away Social Security"

Please fucking stop already

The ignorance is getting pretty deep

[99Forever]

54. We'll see who is "panicking" come the 2014 midterms,

Clifford.

eom

[cliffordu]

58. I dunno what you mean

None of this panics me in the slightest.

[99Forever]

60. We'll see about that. n/t

[demwing]

55. "He's about to deliver another lesson." Lol - Really!

What lesson is that - the "How to piss off everyone in your base, scare the hell out of Seniors, and make the Republicans giggle" lesson?

Lesson learned.

[snappyturtle]

62. +1 Exactly. nt

[woo me with science]

139. Indeed. nt

[kentuck]

57. My friends jumped all over me for yelling fire in a crowded elevator....

There was no fire. There wasn't even any smoke. So what's the big deal??

[randome]

64. Are all your friends blind?

[kentuck]

72. Appears to be the case...

Somebody's hair was on fire...

[TDale313]

70. It's playing Russian Roulette...

With people's livelihoods, and the apologists are saying "It's ok, the other side won't agree to play, there's only one bullet in the chamber, and the gun's only aimed at your foot anyway, so why are you bitching?!?"

[Marr]

71. This is like releasing an attempted purse snatcher, because the police caught him.

I wish apologists would stop pretending this is a defense. If Obama can't get his beloved Chained CPI through the Congress, that won't absolve him of his sustained attempt to sell it. It's still his agenda, whether he manages to get it or not.

[dionysus]

91. and when it doesn't happen (which it never was going to), the disgruntled PUMAS and greens on DU

will claim credit for it not happening...

[Summer Hathaway]

152. Oh, REALLY!

"Obama will NEVER do THAT. Ever. EVER, ever, EVER!!! But be aware that if he DOES DO THAT, even though he has always said he WOULD do THAT, he only DID THAT because we 'held his feet to the fire'."

[OldDem2012]

93. Good luck convincing the Obama-Hater Club of anything, particularly anything that appears....

....rational in nature.

[ieoeja]

97. We know it is not going to happen. But he just killed our chances in the mid-terms.

Some of us are playing 2 dimensional chess while Obama plays checkers.

[cliffordu]

98. Defeatist, much??

[Auntie Bush]

109. Obama is playing 3 dinensional chess with checker players.

[Marr]

145. Oh, I think he's playing a kind of 3 dimensional chess.

He's just playing against us.

I actually suspect Obama's not all that averse to hitting the Democrats' chances in the midterms. If they managed to control both houses of Congress, it'd be a lot harder to push some of the corporate shit he's got lined up.

Remember that remark that was recorded during the last campaign, when Obama thought his mic was off? He was talking to a foreign ambassador of some sort, IIRC, and said he'd "have a lot more flexibility in his second term". Well, this SS offer shows what direction he wants to stretch that flexibility in.

[bowens43]

101. You completely miss the point

Noone expects it to happen but now the Republicans, after they stop this can truthfully run as the party that prevented cuts to social security and they can truthfully portray the Democrats as the party who tried to cut SS benefits.

Obama was played yet again.

Obama give a lesson? ROTFLMAO.


The cons have been kicking his ass since day one

[DevonRex]

103. Of course.

Geez, people are acting like they've actually passed a budget in 1090 days, give or take a few. I'm not feeling the imminent threat here. But he certainly has gotten people's attention, hasn't he. I'm thinking there's a reason for that. (Understatement)

[avaistheone1]

112. Let Obama play 7th level chess on his own dime, not mine.

So now he is experiencing flack that Americans are up in arms about this issue. He shouldn't whine he asked for it.

[neverforget]

114. If it's never going to happen, then why not offer a tax rate of 40% or higher on the

1%? Why offer up the most vulnerable in our society to Republicans?

[avaistheone1]

117. Precisely. I'd like to know the answer to that question too.

[neverforget]

120. I don't think I am going to get an answer on this one

[Hekate]

119. Kick and Rec, Clifford

Thanks. Just thanks.

[bhikkhu]

122. I agree. Sacred cows and ideological purity are for teabaggers

politics is politics, and you can't treat it like a religion.

If Obama thinks that tweaking the COLA adjustment, tied to changes that significantly change our income inequality picture, and protections that actually increase the outlay to those most in need, is a proposal worth making, then that's fine with me.

I don't think for a second that it would pass as he proposed it - nothing ever has - but I also don't think that he would suddenly cave and agree to a worse COLA adjustment all by itself, without protections and without significant tax reforms we have been working toward. That's not in his character, there would be no reason for it, and he is well aware that any proposal has to gain supporti n the senate as well.

All the exploding heads and backstabbing here is embarrassing, like the teaparty became in the last election cycle.

[Laelth]

126. If it's not going to happen, then why propose it?

It makes Democrats look bad. It is both bad politics and bad policy.

I don't think the President is stupid, so why make this proposal? I don't get it, and I don't believe in 11-dimensional chess.

-Laelth

[truebluegreen]

131. Gosh. I'm SO relieved!

I should have remembered that Congress can always be counted on to do the right thing!

p.s. do I need to use this?

[cliffordu]

132. I dunno, do ya??

[truebluegreen]

157. Well, I guess I did, for you. nt

[obxhead]

154. Never say never.

It is unlikely, very unlikely, to happen with the session of Congress.

However, chained CPI has now been officially placed on the table by a Dem.

With the next R Pres (yes there WILL be one) chained CPI might go from unlikely to a slam dunk.

We're safe for now though.

[Logical]

155. Lol, so basically you believe the chess shit! n-t