Chuck Todd on Meet The Press offers a reason for Chained CPI in budget proposal

[Vinnie From Indy]

Todd offers that by including the chained CPI in the President's budget, the Obama team believes that it gives them political cover to walk away from the budget impasse citing GOP intransigence.

I offer that Todd's view is hard to swallow simply because the Obama team seems to be shockingly deficient in pounding the obstructionism/intransigent position of the House GOP home to Americans. I am suspicious of the political maneuvering description of the President's budget proposal because there seems to be no urgency to flood the zone in the media about GOP obstructionism by the White House. In short, why include the chained CPI to put pressure on the GOP if you are not going to actually follow through and pressure the GOP?

Not a single Sunday show included any meaningful discussion of the chained CPI for more than a few minutes. Gun control, immigration and Jackie Robinson were the big discussions.

It all stinks to high heaven!

Cheers!

[dkf]

1. It would be nice if the President explained why he thinks its a good idea.

[NYC_SKP]

2. dkf

Off topic, what is that graph in your sigline?


TIA

[dkf]

11. CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO THE 2012 FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12guide.pdf

See chart 5.

Hmm I didn't think it was showing up properly.

[SidDithers]

12. It shows fine, but it's too small to be meaningful...

the 100px height limit for images in sigs means we can't really see what it means.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

34. Right click and choose "view image". nm

[Flatulo]

45. Odd, it's perfectly legible on my iPad when I zoom in on it. nt

[NYC_SKP]

14. I think you could add the link to the sigline...

Scary chart, thanks!

[dkf]

18. Done!

Thanks for the suggestion. And yes, it was pretty impactful the first time I saw these charts. Obama actually improved the trajectory with the ACA. It used to look worse!

[Oilwellian]

40. LOL, yes, and...

I just saw the chart completely annihilated in another thread.

[trumad]

44. That's easy to asnwer---

It's from a right wing think tank rag that spouts the evil of SS.

There's another thread about it on DU that annihilates it.

[AndyA]

3. That would be a new concept.

He could also explain his change of heart in the few months after the election, when he seemed so against anything that would additionally burden the middle class, seniors, and those in poverty.

Must have been a big revelation.

[Sunlei]

6. And here it is, link for you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections

Chained CPI ProtectionsThe President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget demonstrates that we can make critical investments to strengthen the middle class, create jobs, and grow the economy while continuing to cut the deficit in a balanced way.

The President believes we must invest in the true engine of America’s economic growth – a rising and thriving middle class. He is focused on addressing three fundamental questions: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do the jobs of the 21st Century? How do we make sure hard work leads to a decent living? The Budget presents the President’s plan to address each of these questions.

To make America once again a magnet for jobs, the Budget invests in high-tech manufacturing and innovation, clean energy, and infrastructure, while cutting red tape to help businesses grow. To give workers the skills they need to compete in the global economy, it invests in education from pre-school to job training. To ensure hard work is rewarded, it raises the minimum wage to $9 an hour so a hard day’s work pays more.

The Budget does all of these things as part of a comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit and puts the Nation on a sound fiscal course. Every new initiative in the plan is fully paid for, so they do not add a single dime to the deficit. The Budget also incorporates the President’s compromise offer to House Speaker Boehner to achieve another $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction in a balanced way. When combined with the deficit reduction already achieved, this will allow us to exceed the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, while growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. By including this compromise proposal in the Budget, the President is demonstrating his willingness to make tough choices and his seriousness about finding common ground to further reduce the deficit.

* * *

The Budget contains the President’s compromise offer to Speaker Boehner from December. As part of that offer, the President was willing to accept Republican proposals to switch to the chained CPI. But, the Budget makes clear that the openness to chained CPI depends on two conditions. The President is open to switching to the chained CPI only if:

•The change is part of a balanced deficit reduction package that includes substantial revenue raised through tax reform.

•It is coupled with measures to protect the vulnerable and avoid increasing poverty and hardship.
The Budget contains two types of protections:

Benefit Enhancement for the Very Elderly and Others Who Rely on Social Security for Long Periods of Time

•The benefit enhancement would be equal to 5% of the average retiree benefit, or about $800 per year if the proposal were in effect today.

•It would phase in over 10 years, beginning at age 76, or (for other beneficiaries, such as those receiving Disability Insurance) in the 15th year of benefit receipt.

•The benefit enhancement would begin in 2020, phasing in over 10 years for those 76 or older (or in their 15th year of eligibility or beyond) in that year.

•Beneficiaries who continued to be on the program for an additional 10 years would be eligible for a second benefit enhancement, starting at age 95 in the case of a retired beneficiary.
Because of the benefit enhancement for the very elderly, the Budget proposal would not increase the poverty rate for Social Security beneficiaries, and would slightly reduce poverty among the very elderly according to SSA estimates.

Policy is Not Applied to Means-Tested Benefit Programs

Means-tested benefit programs are not included in the switch to the chained CPI. Programs that would not be included are:

•The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, meaning that the lowest-income seniors and people with disabilities generally would not be affected.
•Means-tested veterans’ pensions as well as the Montgomery GI Bill-active duty or the post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
•The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child nutrition programs.
•Pell Grants.
•Poverty guidelines.
.

[dkf]

17. So it's just a bargaining position and not because he himself justifies it?

Again though, I would like to see him explain why this is needed and why it's the proper solution. Reading it in a piece that obscures it with the entire budget isn't using the bully pulpit.

[Sunlei]

24. yes a barganing position in the budget- republicans have obstructed for months

The chained CPI was a republican demand for the budget.

""The Budget contains the President’s compromise offer to Speaker Boehner from December. As part of that offer, the President was willing to accept Republican proposals to switch to the chained CPI. But, the Budget makes clear that the openness to chained CPI depends on two conditions. The President is open to switching to the chained CPI only if: "........



I think Boehner needs to explain why republicans want the chained CPI change to ss. Boehner never stands up to the American public on anything.

I don't want the President to spend any more time on a yearly budget. The budget is a trumped up issue by republicans so they can continue to obstruct America. They did not expect him to win.

[jazzimov]

80. The bully pulpit has proven useless,

although he has taken his speeches directly to the American public in many cases, which indicates that he's taking the position of "vote the bums out!"

But I'll try to explain this move - I hate to use another "game" metaphor, when the other side views the whole thing as a game and you can't make any progress unless you either win them over or persuade others to "vote the bums out" you more or less have to "play the game". Unfortunate when you're talking about people's livelihoods, but in some cases you have no choice.

This time, imagine a card game of Rummy. It's your turn to discard. You look at your hand, and you don't want to give up any of your cards, but you must. You do have one card that the opposition has "Claimed" that they want, but you know it's a bluff. so, you play the card knowing that you can pick it back up later, and call their bluff.

Or, if you are playing one of the many card games involving a partner, if it's your turn to discard and you have a card you want to win, play it so that your Partner can trump and save the card.

So, Obama played the CCPI card, knowing that the Republicans wouldn't want it and also knowing that other Dems would save it.

Because there is no Presidential election for him to win. But, there is the 2014 election and Dems need to GOTV to win back the House, and maybe gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. If that is accomplished, then we can push through a true Progressive agenda and the only people we have to worry about are ConservaDems.

Again, Obama may have played the CCPI card, but he never had to worry about Republicons accepting it. Again, I regret that they are "playing games" with people's lives - but they are, we have to accept the reality or be doomed by it.

[rhett o rick]

61. "The Budget does all of these things as part of a comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit and

puts the Nation on a sound fiscal course." Which of course is rhetoric for "some cuts may be necessary for the common good."

Since the Republicans will never pass a budget he proposes, why doesnt he propose a budget the American people want? Strengthen SS with a cap raise, lower the Medicare age to 55, strong cuts to a bloated defense budget, and completely eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

[pscot]

62. Benefit Enhancements

Don't call 'em cuts. They're Benefit Enhancements.

[Sunlei]

64. good point

[rhett o rick]

79. I stand corrected. nm

[Sunlei]

63. agree, I wish we could ALL buy into medicare on a bell curve and be done with this :)

The cap on ss should be raised to about the first million and persons like Romney should be cut off from a ss check.

If for some reason Romney goes broke, then he can have his guaranteed benefit.

[n2doc]

8. He has- the Deficit!

That's all you really get from him. Don't ask for more logic or details, because they aren't forthcoming

[Carolina]

53. he can't explain it

because there is no explanation for why a bad idea that first started with repukes is good... it's like making a silk purse from a sow's ear.

He'd have to twist his now proven empty campaign rhetoric like a pretzel or just confess that he's a liar and a republican in D clothing.

[Babel_17]

57. And in addition, the administration tried hard to make the Chained CPI sound reasonable

This gave the Republicans the excuse to say, yeah, we agree it makes sense so it's worth doing on its own.

This left strategists on the blogosphere to sputter that it was just some kind of super karate chess move and, well, listening to the explanations was like listening to this.

[progressoid]

83. "my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and

the opulence of buffalo dung"

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[tblue]

4. Good catch, Vinnie.

Taking Points Todd I don't normally have much faith in.

[CTyankee]

5. UP with Steve Kornacki devoted a segment on CCPI on today's show.

I'm giving the new guy a chance. I miss Chris Hayes but he had to move on and I get that. But he was/is adorable...Steve doesn't have that geeky charm that Chris has...when Chris talks about his little daughter he melts my heart...

[carolinayellowdog]

51. Steve is just as incisive an interviewer and assembled just as good a panel

actually this was better than anything I've seen Chris do so far in his new spot. (I don't understand the nuances of wonkiness, nerdiness, and geekiness in the male charm department but they seem in the sale ballpark.) Neera Tanden was new to me and totally credible. Elsewhere I praised Nadler and Spitzer for quotable flashes of brilliance, but she was steady, coherent, seemed to have real mastery of the subject. Bravo to all of them.

[CTyankee]

60. Oh, Chris always had those people on his show! But they might be considered less

"interesting" for an evening show, which I think is ridiculous. And that would be too bad. I haven't been able to watch it too much since it debuted. I hope to started seeing it regularly but I always get caught up in something else...

as for the wonkishness being attractive, I think Chris has it but there is a chemistry about Chris that progressive women just love. When he said on Morning Joe that his bike was stolen (so he wasn't riding it to the studio) I felt a little stab of sorrow for him...someone once said that star power involved having people care about what happens to you. I guess that's true...

[backscatter712]

7. For once, I agree with Chucky.

Since the Rethugs rejected even this, now Obama can blame the country's woes on GOP intransigence, & can claim he freaked out his own base trying to make a deal.

It's a risky strategy though. What if the GOP says yes?...

[JoePhilly]

9. They can't say yes ...

Saying YES requires Boehner to write a bill that includes Chained CPI but that drops privatization and that also includes new revenues.

Boehner can't do that because it doesn't hit SS hard enough and the house gop won't go along with any new revenues.

Its a trap.

[flamingdem]

21. Thanks, this makes sense nt

[customerserviceguy]

68. When the whole thing

is all about solely avoiding blame, and not about doing something to fix things so that blame is minimal, expect bad things to happen to good people.

I see total gridlock coming on every front, guns, immigration, and especially fiscal matters. At some point, we're going to have to deal with the debt ceiling, then it really gets nasty. A grand bargain is an attempt to avoid having to deal with that, but it looks like we're just going to hear a lot of people say, "It's all THEIR fault!" when the shit hits the fan.

[Life Long Dem]

10. I believe

Obama offered an arm (CCPI) to save a death (SS).

[TheKentuckian]

13. A death how?

By what possible process would such come to fruition?

[Life Long Dem]

16. SS needs fixing within 20 years

[still_one]

23. Oh please, don't bring up facts. Also, social security is not part of the deficit. We should bring

that little point up either, because it may avoid the implication that somehow it is, and of course the worthless MSM won't point that out.

I will trust decisions on SS and Medicare to people like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, before I trust the Democratic leadership in the party today

[Life Long Dem]

25. Speaking of facts

"The federal government for the first time in its history had to borrow money in 2010 to cover Social Security benefits to retired and disabled workers — a trend that worsened in 2011 and will not change at any point in the future unless changes are made."

"It’s true that Social Security is “a separate funded operation,” primarily through payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits. But tax revenues no longer cover the cost of Social Security benefits. As a result, Social Security is adding to the debt."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/11/durbin-again-denies-social-securitys-red-ink/

[still_one]

26. Is it not true that money from the Social Security fund has been used for NON-Social Security

purpose?

Regardless, they want a quick solution, then raise the cap for now on it. Don't raise the age, and don't steal anymore money from it.

Of course if they increase the age to 99 then the problem is solved also

[Life Long Dem]

30. Yeah lets get the Republicans to raise the cap

[rhett o rick]

39. So your point is that we must "give" the Republicans something they like.

When you say we had to borrow to pay SS dont you mean we had to borrow to pay for the wars that drained us? On the books SS has trillions. It's the War Account that is in debt.

What you are supporting is the Republican plan. Falsely claim SS is in trouble when in fact the budget is in trouble AND NOT FROM SS.

Raising the cap should be the only SS related issue on the table. If the REpublicans dont like it, that proves it's good.

[still_one]

50. The middle class and poor are the ones who have been paying for the incompetence.

[customerserviceguy]

73. I keep hearing the "raise the cap" people

And not one has shown me anything that tells me just how much money would be raised by raising or eliminating the cap. So, I decided to do the math on this from another way.

The CBO says that chained CPI would reduce outlays over a ten year period by $216.1 billion dollars

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/new-cbo-estimates-show-how-shifting-to-chained-cpi-would-harm-poorly-compensated-workers-and-others-struggling-to-afford-the-basics

Put another way, that's the employer and employee share of FICA taxes (14.2%) on wages of over 1.52 trillion dollars. Since only about 5.8 percent of workers earn over the 2012 cap of $110,100 (see table 1 on page 2):

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ss-2012-05.pdf

That would correspond to an additional $183K of income being taxed on the average for those 5.8 percent of workers. Since the latter study shows a dramatic drop-off of potentially FICA taxable income at the $250K level (from 5.8 to 1.4 percent), I doubt that the average worker who is already over the cap is making $293,000 for us to tax. The money just isn't there.

Further, the above calculation doesn't include the impact on future Social Security outlays from a raise in the maximum benefits of those who would be paying more FICA, and it doesn't include the income tax hikes from chained CPI, either. That will help balance the budget, and once we have to start actually redeeming Social Security Trust funds instead of playing a few short-term accounting games, we will need budget surpluses to actually retire those specialized securities, or we will just have to borrow on the open market for redemptions.

[Life Long Dem]

81. Raising the cap is thrown out there a lot

Seems to be a lot of misinformation out there on this.

[customerserviceguy]

82. It fits on a bumper sticker

But it doesn't go through a spreadsheet very well.

I agree that indexing the caps for inflation is a good idea, and we may well have to come up with another benefits tier to pay out on the rise in taxed income. I'm also for the idea of making the sky the limit on the employer's share of FICA. If US Airways wants to pay it's CEO $20 million to run the airliner into the ground in bankruptcy court, then they can afford to pay 6.2% of that into FICA, with no resulting increase in the minimum benefit for Mr. Parker.

I'm also for differentials in employer FICA rates for various business sizes. Let the small start up businesses pay 1% less, and the most successful businesses pay 1% more, with most in the middle at the current parity with the employee rate. That would be a small spur to job growth.

Ultimately, chained CPI is going to be part of a big "fix" for Social Security, if we want a seat at the table discussing what possible options there should be, we need to get out of denial that there's a problem.

[Hoyt]

28. I wish we could tatoo that on back of hand of everyone who keeps posting "SS doesn't impact debt."

These folks can't -- or don't want to -- understand all this crud is interrelated and does impact our country.

And no, I'm not for throwing granny (or my old ass) under the bus. I'm for improving the economy so that we will all be better off, especially the youngsters in the job market who will be paying granny's and my SS benefits.

[Life Long Dem]

31. I agree

The AARP nerd is full of it as well.

"AARP’s incredibly one-sided explanation combines ballpark accuracy with misleading omissions."

http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/fact-checking-aarps-explanation-of-chained-cpi/

[Hoyt]

36. That's another good analysis, and Obama's budget includes that 10 year "bump."

Point is, that zebrafactcheck article does not take into account the new "bump" which makes all the dire predictions, less dire.

I guess now the critics will move on to the argument that "this Obama's proposal pulls the foundation out from SS and will lead to its demise."

While I wish the C-CPI were not part of Obama's budget, it's not the end of the world as we know it.

[Jim Lane]

65. No, the AARP is not "full of it".

That zebrafactcheck attack on the AARP presentation boils down to saying that, even with CCPI, Social Security benefits measured in current dollars will still increase each year.

BFD. The whole point of using any CPI adjustment is that current dollars are not a meaningful measure. With CCPI, many beneficiaries would find their real benefits (i.e., benefits relative to their expenses) decreasing. This purported refutation dances around that fact. It's zebrafactcheck (whoever they are) that's most guilty of misleading omissions.

[Life Long Dem]

67. Not as bad as AARP portrays

"even with CCPI, Social Security benefits measured in current dollars will still increase each year."

"Is it possible for the C-CPI-U to increase faster than the CPI-U?"

"At lower levels, and for short periods of time, it is possible for the C-CPI-U to increase faster than the CPI-U. That said, the evidence suggests that the C-CPI-U over time will trend slightly lower than the CPI-U."

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpisupqa.htm#Question_5

"AARP’s incredibly one-sided explanation combines ballpark accuracy with misleading omissions."

http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/fact-checking-aarps-explanation-of-chained-cpi/

[rhett o rick]

46. I would like to see which economists agree with you. Do you have

and references?

And check this out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022671540#op

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

69. Where did all the surpluses from the decades past go?

Speaking of facts...

[Life Long Dem]

70. We all know they spent like drunken sailors.

The mess is still there though.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

72. And, just like 'drunken sailors'

the tab remains the same.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

58. That's what they want you to believe. However, the evidence doesn't support that theory, only

Elite Marketing

[BeyondGeography]

15. Which reminds me, Americans aren't much for conversation

It's one of our least endearing traits.

[Triana]

19. The huge corps that own the media and evade paying taxes by hiding profits in tax havens

(GE for instance) WILL NOT report the facts on SS or Chained CPI either - you'll hear these very important stories from mostly or only other than mainstream media outlets. I've HEARD THESE corprat execs say they simply don't want to pay any FICA taxes at all -- and certainly don't want to pay a higher FICA rate now that babyboomers are retiring.

These corprats don't want to pay any taxes at all: taxes on their profits, payroll or FICA taxes. And they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid it.

These are the SAME corps the Treasury robbed our SS trust fund to give money to (for wars, bailouts etc.). Now that that SS money is needed for the ACTUAL purpose it was intended for - providing retirement income for the seniors who paid into it all their lives as babyboomers retire - these corprats don't want to pay back the money they stole (or were given) out of that fund. They don't want to pay FICA AT ALL much less a higher rate in order to make SS solvent for a longer period of time.

This is why we NEVER hear raising the FICA tax rate or increasing or removing the FICA cap mentioned as an option. David Axelrod said on Maddow's show just last week that such options were not "salable"



Not "SALABLE" to *WHO*? Poll after poll shows that the American people are fully willing to pay higher FICA taxes or lift the cap in order to shore up Social Security.

But, Axelrod wasn't talking about "we the people". So WHO was he talking about that raising FICA tax isn't "salable" to? Answer: The BIG CORPORATIONS that own and control our entire government and Treasury.

THAT is who Obama and Congress and the Senate answer to. NOT "we the people".

And these big corps (there are five big corps who own and control ALL the mainstream media in the US) are not going to shoot down their little ruse to get out of paying FICA (by destroying Social Security altogether, starting with Chained CPI) by reporting the damn facts about what's going on. So they spew bullshit like this steaming pile from Morning Joke.

They helped rob the American people of their Social Security (along with the Fed Treasury) and they intend to get away with it. They're certainly not going to tattle on themselves on the air!

Or at least that's how I understand what's going on so far.

[valerief]

38. Yup, it's all about raiding the Treasury. Pigs at the trough. nt

[still_one]

20. I agree, todd's view is BS. I look back on the ACA when we had the votes, and why the Senate threw

out the public option that the house version had?

It is because they didn't want it, and as far as the chained CPI is concerned, it is another way to cut more benefits from a program that already has had benefits cut during the years

What is the most amazing is that no one asks why is this being brought up in budget deficit negotiations when social security has nothing to do with it. It is a separately funded program. Unless of course there real intention is to continue to steal from the fund for other purposes such as wars, etc.

I am a very disillusioned Democrat, wondering how we got to where we are today

[BumRushDaShow]

54. LIEberman, Lincoln, Conrad, Baucus, et al

blocked the Public Option in the Senate.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/64981-senator-lieberman-not-backing-public-option

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/31/852920/-Blanche-Lincoln-I-voted-against-the-public-option

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/24/61346/conrad-france-health-care/

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/09/29/170973/baucus-option/

And since they were on one of the Committees that worked on the legislation, it died.

DU needs to stop blaming Obama for what convervadems did and still do to torpedo legislation. Thankfully at least 3 of the 4 listed are now gone.

The progressive agenda needs to find a way to make inroads in these rural areas, otherwise like RW rethuggery, it will be tied solely to a geographically dispersed and disconnected regional party.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. That is the problem. Exactly. Obama thinks he needs political cover...

... to walk away from the budget impasse caused by GOP intransigence. That is mind numbing to contemplate. Maybe he needs political cover to keep the crew at Morning Joe from blasting him, but the American people? Taking the lead on offering Social Security cuts as a tactic to provide political cover? It is almost preferable to believe that Obama really believes it is the right thing to do period. Bye bye third rail. Bye bye sharp distinction between the parties on protecting the economic safety net. Hello to both parties agreeing that benefits must be cut as part of an overall reform of Social Security because of the deficit, which it doesn't even contribute to. All that for "political cover"? The man doesn't even have to run for re-election again.

[still_one]

27. Why, does the President think it will hurt him when he runs for reelection in 2016?

[jimlup]

29. Personally I think it was another example of Obama

negotiating before the negotiations had even begun. Why the hell do you open with a fall back/retrench position?? Yes, Mr. President, I understand that negotiations are hard but don't give away the best horse in the opening round!

Frankly, I think those claiming it is 3D chess are very naive. It is backfiring already as we see the Republicans lining up to attack us on it.

Team Obama needed a crash course in negotiation strategy but apparently now it is too late. You'da thought that an awkward 1st term and the obvious lessons it produced would have been enough but apparently not.

[bvar22]

32. "It all stinks to high heaven! "

I agree!

[carolinayellowdog]

33. Spitzer and Nadler were infinitely quotable this morning on UP with Steve Kornacki, for two hours

You wrote, and I expected that

Not a single Sunday show included any meaningful discussion of the chained CPI for more than a few minutes. Gun control, immigration and Jackie Robinson were the big discussions.

but I was very pleasantly surprised by two solid hours of discussion lead by Kornacki with several excellent guests. Eliot Spitzer and Jerry Nadler were the ones who had me cheering YES the most. Hope it will be linked and discussed where shortly.

[Samantha]

37. Nadler was superb and Spitzer was not bad either!

Nadler said he does not expect Democratic House representatives to back the President up on this. Hurray!

Sam

[valerief]

35. Toady Todd, GOP shill. nt

[JEB]

41. Is it possible that Todd

is the unnatural spawn of Jabba the Hut and Henry Kissinger? I see familial resemblance.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. "Gun control, immigration and Jackie Robinson" = The latest shiny objects.

[fjlovato]

43. Ploy

With the belief that people who read this thread are interested in politics, what part of ploy do you not understand. President Obama is playing rope-a-dope with our republican "friends" so real legislation can be passed after the 2014 Congressional elections. The is a PLOY to get them to refuse to deal and then beat them up in 2014. Would any of you care to play poker?

[NoMoreWarNow]

48. but if you read the OP--the problem with that argument is that

Obama hardly spends anytime pounding the GOP on their intransigence. Now, you could argue that Obama is appealing to the center by this whole deal, but he's also creating a lot of problems for his base.

Welcome to DU, btw!

[hrmjustin]

85. Welcome to DU Fjlovato!

[NoMoreWarNow]

47. yes, well said

[sabrina 1]

49. Well, you can't blame him for trying to figure out why it was included in the budget. No one

seems to know, it was that unbelievable. This is why we are hearing so many different excuses.

But the one I believe is the one offered by the WH spokesperson, since he is in the best position to know. He stated that it was because 'the Republicans asked for it'.

[1-Old-Man]

52. Tell me, in what thawed out hell has Chuck Todd ever been right about anything?

[treestar]

55. Of course it could not be true

Then you would not get to have an outrage over it.

[GeorgeGist]

56. Kabuki. Awesome!

[TeamPooka]

59. You lost me at "Chuck Todd". Don't care what he thinks. nt

[Cleita]

66. Chuckie Toad, never fails to be himself. What a tool! n/t

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

[AverageJoe90]

71. Todd is likely correct, though.

TBH, Obama DOES have quite a bit more leverage to do what he really wants to do compared to when he was first starting out.....and this isn't exactly going to help the Repubs, either, as now they're stuck with their own conundrum; Do they support chained CPI and risk losing the more moderate senior vote, or do they reject it, and definitely lose at least some of the Teabaggers come 2014.

Just something important to keep in mind.....

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

74. doubt it

as part of the main-stream media political class, he's often wrong.

[AverageJoe90]

75. I agree, Todd usually IS wrong, but this is definitely a rare exception to that rule, no question...

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

76. there are no exceptions

it's by design

[AverageJoe90]

77. According to whom? CounterPunch? Jane Hamsher? Who? n/t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

78. anyone who has been paying attention for the last 4 or 5 decades

eom

[just1voice]

84. "Meet the Presswhores" has been pure propaganda for years

Don't care what any lying fraud says on there.