General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Joins the Club
Obama Joins the ClubBy William Rivers Pitt
Truthout | Op-Ed
Monday 15 April 2013
I spent the week trying to think of new and novel ways to call the president stupid for putting a Social Security benefit cut into his budget, because coughing up this Chained CPI thing raced into the Unforced Political Errors Hall Of Fame so fast it left skid marks and smoke, and is currently jostling elbows with Nixon firing Archie Cox and Clinton offering the intern a cigar for the marquee spot at the top of the list.
Think I'm exaggerating? Serving up a cut to Social Security benefits - and it is a cut, no matter what the Smart People tell you - was galactically stupid from a tactical perspective. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), the anointed mouthpiece for the GOP's House re-election campaign, has already called the president's budget a "shocking attack," and accused the White House of "trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors."
Get ready for a lot more of that.
Never mind the hypocrisy of Republicans attacking the president for doing exactly what they wanted him to do - a comprehensive lack of shame is, after all, the GOP's greatest political strength - and remember the 2010 midterm elections, when the Republicans ran a very similar game against Obama regarding Medicare and very nearly took over all of Congress.
Every Democrat running for re-election in 2014 will have this stinking dead albatross hanging around their neck, and the smart ones are already putting daylight between themselves and the White House. Feature this response to the president's budget proposal from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): "They cannot lay that dead cat at our door. I don't know how it's going to affect the president's brand, but it would be completely unfair to affect the House Democratic Caucus brand, because we had nothing to do with it and most of us are affirmatively and explicitly against it."
If you're in the business of getting anyone with a (D) after their name elected in 2014, it's time to start stocking up on canned goods and survival gear when an excellent Democrat like Keith Ellison gets to talking about dead cats and "the president's brand" in the same breath. The rest of us get to spend the coming election cycle watching this communication -deficient administration try to square that circle with seniors who will already be terrified by the GOP's blistering message campaign. The best answer the White House will be able to conjure is, "Yeah, cutting Social Security benefits was in our budget, but we didn't really mean it, it was only a negotiating tactic, trust us."
Quiz: which political demographic shows up in great numbers for mid-term elections?
Answer: seniors.
Do the math.
The rest: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15735-obama-joins-the-club
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
haikugal
(6,476 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)
cilla4progress
(24,718 posts)He's really good and his message resonantes well with the mass of people, voters, regular folks in America, but not so skillful with formerly fellow legislators. Of course, an inspirational speaker and I believe he has created a lasting legacy, still a work-in-progress.
I attribute his difficulties convincing Washington and getting things done to a couple things. One main cause, I believe, is because his rapid trajectory did not allow him to build relationships in the Senate, a support network, if you will. He also skipped past others who probably felt they were in line ahead of him, for the top executive spot. And there's also "uppity...".
Like other visionary leaders though, on a very fundamental level, he is a loner not a schmoozer, and will never be able to pull that role off. His message is a thumb to the nose to the bulk of legislators who function on a more pedestrian and morally ambiguous level.
I think history will read him this way: inspirational; ethically sound and authentic; visionary; but lacking in political skills, at least as far as moving legislation goes. Not all his fault, though.
My 2 cents.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)care to expanded wars, rendition, extending the Bush tax cuts, his actions have belied his words.
He is pushing the neo con agenda.
Except for the student loan thing and a few other items, of course.
randome
(34,845 posts)Pushing for gay rights.
Pushing for gun control.
Covering pre-existing medical conditions.
Covering contraception.
Expanding Medicaid coverage.
Pushing for equitable taxation.
Pushing for immigration reform.
Violence Against Women Act.
Lily Ledbetter Act.
Angelonthesidelines
(70 posts)and Cake for Wall Street Hucksters and Banksters.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Lets take a look:
*"Pushing for gay rights".
Pushing?... Really?
*I remember him having to "evolve",
and eventually accepting Gay Rights as inevitable.
I don't remember him EVER "pushing" for Gay Rights.
In fact, in most of his first term, he OPPOSED them.
*"Pushing for gun control."
Can you point to him pushing?
Again, he appears to be MiddleMan going with the flow,
and working very hard NOT to appear to be pushing in either direction.
*"Covering pre-existing medical conditions."
without ANY cost controls.
This was a HUGE gift to the very RICH who can afford the pricey Buy In price for this coverage,
but it does NOTHING for the millions of Working Class and Poor Americans
who can no longer be denied coverage for PEC,
but are routinely turned away because they don't have the money.
*Covering contraception.
Good! How much did this cost the RICH?
*Expanding Medicaid coverage.
I stand up and applaud expandidng Medicaid,
but did the President have to give WALL Street & the Health Insurance Corporations The MANDATE to BUY Insurance?
None of this has happened yet, and won't happen until 2014.
Then we can evaluate whether this Trade Off (Medicaid Expansion vs The Mandate to Buy Health)
was necessary.
I really wish the Democratic party had Pieced out the Reform Bill.
Maybe we could have gotten a Medicaid Expansion without giving up The Mandate
if we had "pushed" hard enough.
We won't really know HOW this Trade Off plays out until well into 2014,
but it IS a little early for the Mission Accomplished Parade.
*Pushing for equitable taxation.
All I will say is that "pushing" is hyperbole.
How do we know he isn't just "bluffing" again,
and there is that "pushing" thing again.
When did points start being awarded for "pushing".
How often do you cite "pushing" for something in YOUR resume'?
*Pushing for immigration reform.
Tepid, but how many point does one get for "pushing"? 
*Violence Against Women Act.
Great
*Lily Ledbetter Act.
Wonderful,
Again, these are all wonderful in their own right,
and "pushing" for these things is EXPECTED from ANY Democratic President,
but these are a drop in the bucket compared to the "change" that was promised,
and an embarrassingly LIGHT resume' for a 5 year President with a Mandate.
[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]
[font size=5]"Oh, What could SHOULD have been."[/font]
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Covering pre-existing conditions, contraception, medicare expansion, are all better handled by delivering Medicare for all or a public option.
He extended the Bush tax cuts, rather than increasing taxes on the wealthy.
His immigration reform will likely cost American jobs.
Violence against women and Lilly Ledbetter are two of the few other things.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)marriage equality and that in the few scant months since he muttered words of support he has not done a thing that can be called 'pushing' for equality or rights. He said a few things. You keep listing this 'push' for 'gay rights' when the fact is it has not been a year since he stopped preaching about the Sanctity of one man and one woman with God in the mix.
Your list is really getting to be sort of offensive. Pushing. Since June. Sort of. Not in any specific way, just ya know,,,,pushing....
watoos
(7,142 posts)conflict with multinational corporations(guns won't be banned) who are the people calling the shots in America.
lark
(23,065 posts)Putting forward the chained cpi is not a communications failure, it is a policy failure through and through. He wants this and so included it in HIS budget. He's not visionary, except keeping things as they are at the fundemental level. I think he will be seen as a man with great oratorical skills who could have really changed things, but chose to not rock the boat and ultimately conceeded the economy to the right wing. Given the worst case, he will be seen as the man who sent the Democrats to minority status for the next decade or more.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)He's Wall Street's puppet, and he was shoved down Democrats' throats in the primaries of 2007-2008 without any kind of proper vetting whatsoever.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)
He'll be rewarded with the big bucks, so no worries over his legacy for him, I'm guessing.
Probably all he ever cared about anyway.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Oh boy, this isn't going to make a certain hard core fan club happy. 
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)----> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022593627
On the IWR: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022593627#post28
quinnox
28. well, maybe she had to do that for her political career. She is a woman, and she has to appear strong. I am not excusing it, just saying she might have had reasons. And it was not a pivotal vote she made either, in terms of the numbers. If she had opposed it, that would have made no difference in how it came out.
indeed. L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Larrylarry
(76 posts)Implying the Republicans will attack the Democrats for their minor changes to Social Security is obscene
Every Republican voted for the Paul Ryan budget
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)BRIAN BEUTLER APRIL 10, 2013, 3:48 PM
Remember those warnings about how instead of welcoming President Obama’s adoption of Chained CPI, Republicans would continue to deny him a budget deal and attack him for proposing to cut Social Security?
Well Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) — who also happens to be chairman of the House GOP’s re-election committee — just showed how it’s done, saying Obama’s budget “lays out a shocking attack on seniors.”
“I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” he said on CNN Wednesday afternoon.
Needless to say, if the NRCC chairman is fronting this line of attack, we’ll probably see it pop up contested districts around the country next year.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You might want check that attitude when addressing Mr Pitt. His creds here are impeccable, you signed up a week ago. Catch my drift?
Response to 99Forever (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to 99Forever (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Obama has done nothing but bend over and try to compromise ...it does not work ...they hate him. They are obstructionists. They are the ones who should be coming to the POTUS with a willingness to compromise. I'm sick and tired of seeing Obama reach over to them and then cave every time. He has abandoned a core Dem principle that Dems have stood for since FDR.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #77)
Name removed Message auto-removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Since when does the US population have a Repuke majority? We won the last 2 elections because Repukes are a majority? O yea sure the majority of Dems all want Obama to compromise to the obstructionist Repuke party ....pfffft whatever.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #94)
Name removed Message auto-removed
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Giving away the farm to the party that got landslided in the last election is the "will of the people?"
Er, um...ok.
randome
(34,845 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)If Democrats had a strong majority in the Congress do you think we would have "grand bargains"? I think not. Let's not repeat 2010!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Enjoy your brief stay.
randome
(34,845 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I guess that says it all.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)lark
(23,065 posts)They will continue to do it and do it extremely loudly during the next campaign season. Repugs don't give a shit about consistency, they only care about winning and this is so a winning message for them unless Dems come out strongly against the president.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Marr
(20,317 posts)Wake the fuck up.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)White House spokespeople and operatives actually following through on the alleged strategy for offering the chained CPI. If the strategy was to include SS reform to cast the house GOP as intransigent and obstructionist, where are the Obama people launching those attacks? One would think that if the Obama people were serious enough about breaking the impasse with the house GOP by offering cuts to SOCIAL SECURITY, they would actually follow through and begin a national campaign to shame the GOP for being obstructionist. I haven't seen any real effort to sell this aspect of the budget by the White House to the American people. Without any real effort in that regard, it is hard to see the Chained CPI as anything but a betrayal and that the reasons for including it in the budget are lies.
Cheers!
randome
(34,845 posts)...when your goal is to let them make fools of themselves.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)[link:http://
|He is not inept, he is very skilled, but his agenda is not our agenda.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I've always felt that everyone from high school on up should see this. Repeatedly, until it sinks in.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)I miss his voice and perspectives on the state of America. I have no doubt he would have a very low opinion of the current administration and the policies it is pursuing. Live on in memory George, you were 100% correct!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Every Democrat running for re-election in 2014 will have this stinking dead albatross hanging around their neck, and the smart ones are already putting daylight between themselves and the White House. Feature this response to the president's budget proposal from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): "They cannot lay that dead cat at our door. I don't know how it's going to affect the president's brand, but it would be completely unfair to affect the House Democratic Caucus brand, because we had nothing to do with it and most of us are affirmatively and explicitly against it."
Yeah, Obama isn't up for re-election ever again. Republicans are despicable hypocrites. Now what?
People are going to have to decide about 2014, as Keith Ellison states.
No one is going to hold their representatives accountable for a proposal they don't support.
If it goes to a vote and is "voted down by his fellow Democrats," they'll be heroes.
If it passes, it will be added to list of attacks on Social Security. A failed proposal is not going to amount to a hill of beans for anyone who comes out against it. If they support it, that's a different story.
Legislative Changes in 1996 & 1997
Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-121).
This bill, signed by the President on March 29, 1996, made a change in the basic philosophy of the disability program. Beginning on that date, new applicants for Social Security or SSI disability benefits could no longer be eligible for benefits if drug addiction or alcoholism is a material factor to their disability. Unless they can qualify on some other medical basis, they cannot receive disability benefits. Individuals in this category already receiving benefits, are to have their benefits terminated as of January 1, 1997. Previous policy has been that if a person has a medical condition that prevents them from working, this qualifies them as disabled for Social Security and SSI purposes--regardless of the cause of the disability. Another significant provision of this law doubled the earnings limit exemption amount for retired Social Security beneficiaries, on a gradual schedule from 1996 to 2002. In 2002, the exempt amount will be $30,000 per year in earnings, compared to $14,760 under previous law.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
This "welfare reform" legislation, signed by the President on 8/22/96, ended the categorical entitlement to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) that was part of the original 1935 Social Security Act by implementing time-limited benefits along with a work requirement. The law also terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens. Previously, lawfully admitted aliens could receive SSI if they met the other factors of entitlement. As of the date of enactment, no new non-citizens could be added to the benefit rolls and all existing non-citizen beneficiaries would eventually be removed from the rolls (unless they met one of the exceptions in the law.) Also effective upon enactment were provisions eliminating the "comparable severity standard" and reference to "maladaptive behavior" in the determination of disability for children to receive SSI. Also, children currently receiving benefits under the old standards were to be reviewed and removed from the rolls if they could not qualify under the new standards.
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
Requires that all federal payments (including Social Security and SSI) be made by electronic funds transfer (no more paper checks) effective January 1, 1999, unless a waiver is granted by the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997
This massive omnibus spending bill contained SSA's budget as well as numerous legislative changes relating to the SSI program and to issues involved in fighting fraudulent documents in connection with obtaining Social Security numbers. The major SSI provision makes sponsorship agreements legally enforceable for the first time. In the area of identification-related documents, the law requires the establishment of federal standards for state-issued birth certificates and requires SSA to develop a prototype counterfeit-resistant Social Security card.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997
This bill passed the House on 7/30/97 by a vote of 346 to 85, and passed the Senate the next day on a vote of 85 to 15. This law restored SSI eligibility to certain cohorts of non- citizens whose eligibility otherwise would be terminated under the "welfare reform" of 1996. It also extended for up to one year the period for redetermining the eligibility of certain aliens who may ultimately not be eligible for continued benefits.
- more -
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#colas
The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)But that doesn't say something good about Pres. Obama.
And face it, the Dems in the senate and congress are in disarray.
Instead of using the power of their combined offices to promote Dem ideas,as leader he's promoting chained CPI as a trade-off to *any* rise in tax revenues.
Can't you see why that's heavily, heavily, heavily unbalanced in favor of the Reps, who *still* haven't wavered in their absolutism?
Why, after 5 years of power, haven't the Dems come together to push an unified program - and define a positive Dem narrative to replace the tired Reagan shit?
Logical
(22,457 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)The Dam has Broken.
Thanks Will!
We could have taken back this country for decades...but, the chance was given away with our own Democratic Votes.. Which is the tragedy.
And, it truly is a tragedy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)what happens to Obama politically, since he's seeking actions that would be worse than doing nothing.
bigtree
(85,977 posts)Your quote from Ellison is as good a demonstration of why. Democrats have but to state what their own position is on the WH proposal. Since Congress doesn't appear to want to touch it with a ten-foot pole - even republicans have fallen into criticizing it and can't take that back - there isn't a discernible trail from this WH doa proposal to whatever campaign they're running. By now, whatever distance they want from the president can be predictably and believably accomplished in his lame duck days.
Democratic candidates have made an art form out of running apart from the Obama White House. i don't know why 2014 should be expected to be any less of an opportunity or impulse to distance themselves from whatever WH politics puts their campaigns at a disadvantage.
Moreover, the republicans ALREADY tried to make an issue out of Obama and SS and Medicare cuts in the last campaign and FAILED on all fronts with that strategy. That's because their OWN budgets eviscerate SS and Medicare, not just adjust rates of increase of payments.
It's not as hard to tell the difference in parties on this issue as you suggest and I'm going to maintain that this budget proposal - which won't see the light of day and is coupled with so many qualifications - isn't going to translate into 'Democrats want to cut my Social Security and Medicare.'
Fat chance republicans are going to be able to portray themselves and their parties as protectors and saviors of these programs. If we're so goddamn concerned about the next election, we should be spending our time focusing on the real culprits; the opposition; the real threats to our social safety nets: the republican legislators.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)its own President usually bombs at the voting booths.
Obama decided to make himself radioactive with this stupid bullcrap, all in pursuit of his "grand bargain" and to convince people that he really, really wants to compromise.
randome
(34,845 posts)The old "I don't agree with everything proposed by the WH. I will make my own decisions about what's right for my constituents."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)tripping over themselves to get away from their national figurehead, things don't go so well nationally.
He's rubbed the Democrats' brand of "protecting Social Security and Medicare" into the dirt, in order to give Republicans political cover on the issue.
randome
(34,845 posts)I haven't heard any angry denunciations from Democrats. Of course there may be one or two but so far as I know, they don't keep the spotlight for long.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Either they stand with him and for cutting Social Security, or they dissociate themselves from him.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/293703-dems-fear-obamas-social-security-cut-will-haunt-them-in-2014
"There are the substantive concerns about the chained CPI — I share many of them — but there are also the political concerns," Van Hollen said Friday. "And the fact [is] that Republicans were very quick to show they would use this as a political weapon against Democrats.
"I know there have been efforts to rewind the tape on that," Van Hollen said, referencing Republican criticisms of Walden's comments, "but that first salvo demonstrated what the Republican campaign committee intends to do."
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Obama's Social Security proposal was a gift to Republicans that could single-handedly kill any chance the party had at regaining the Speaker's gavel in 2014.
Obama has decided to screw the Democratic party in an attempt to pass a Grand Bargain in order to secure his legacy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"A party that has to run away from and denounce its own President usually bombs at the voting booths. "
...this issue is going to be dead a year before the elections. Congress has to pass a spending bill this year. Specifically, the deficit negotiations are going to decided before the end of the summer.
Secondly, even if the election was being held later this year, Democrats could easily run on protecting Social Security on the premise that if Republicans retain the House and make significant gains in the Senate, the Grand Bargain will be a done deal.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cutting Social Security and Medicare.
Not as a concession in negotiations, but rather as a straightforward proposal as what they see is a good idea.
So, the Republicans get to attack us over the issue, instead of the other way around.
But, he'll convince maybe David Brooks and Fred Hiatt.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Sure, but now the Democrats' leader has proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare. Not as a concession in negotiations, but rather as a straightforward proposal as what they see is a good idea."
...no cuts to Medicare and the proposal is still a "concession" that Republicans will never accept.
When cynicism rules the day
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022662485
Spot the question Boehner didn't answer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on Medicare recipients, while adding hundreds of billions of defense spending.
Yeaah!
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . sequester cuts will engage without a deal and the focus will be on an obstinate and obstructive republican party that is threatening the economy.
You might be correct if there was some visible effort to enact these provisions; much less chance of even debating them. Where was the drop in support when the President suggested including these cuts in a negotiation months ago? They've been on the WH website ever since. Show me evidence of the political fallout for Democratic candidates. It's certainly not in the example given of Ellison ably defending himself and declaring his own position.
It's almost too earnest a prediction; as if it would be a negative for Democrats to defend themselves against the idea of cuts to the social safety net; or some disaster that they'd be challenged to define their position. Is this really the apex of the op's concern? The politics of Democratic candidates pushing off from a lame duck president?? isn't that a given in the second term?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama is part of that.
Obama is focused on Grand Bargain and background checks.
Not jobs.
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . and anyone who thinks they can distract voters off of the issue of employment with a doa budget deal proposal should maybe consider a different course than wasting folks money on a bid which will only attract the bottom feeders who voted for Romney.
Remember, sequester cuts go forward. Republicans' obstinacy is almost certain to continue. The economy is at risk. Jobs are at risk. That's the issue, not some distraction over a dead WH budget proposal.
I don't think you realize this, but the MSM doesn't give a damn about the cpi and isn't going to give the concerns of the net left (or the President) any more attention that they have in the past.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the Democrats do about jobs?" their main point of reference will be the Obama budget, which increases defense spending at the expense of Social Security.
The administration is talking about Chained CPI instead of job creation.
The Republicans didn't force him to do that. That's his priorities.
. . .when voters discuss jobs, they will debate issues related to employment, like infrastructure investments; small-business assistance; investments in manufacturing and education.
YOU are talking about chained cpi. The administration? Not so much.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to be the major point of discussion, they had the option of not advocating for it in their budget.
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . take a look outside this internet bubble.
NO one believes republicans are protectors or defenders of SS or Medicare. If you can't defend against that and put the responsibility on them then maybe you should consider another profession other than politics. This isn't going to affect anything more influential or substantial than the scorched hair of political pundits.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)'cuts to Medicare.' And that was bullshit.
This is an actual cut to Social Security.
But, you are correct, because currently Obama is focused on getting worthless/pro-gun 'background check' legislation written by the gun nuts through Congress.
bigtree
(85,977 posts)In 2010, republican voters were pissed at electing a black man to the WH. That's what sent them to the polls in greater numbers.
The 'cut' to providers was nothing more than requiring them to spend more money on actual patient costs than for other hospital expenses. That was portrayed as a 'cut' to Medicare and was featured in Ryan's diatribe about obama cutting SS and Medicare. This just happened, so it's just silly to try and represent the republican argument against Obama as some defining proof that he cut Medicare. That's a good demonstration of the opposition-generated bull that flies around here as fact; just to slam Obama.
Unlike the medicare guidance to providers, there is *NO*legislation cutting SS. You're arguing a straw man here and trying to convince that there's some real-world consequence to Democrats in future elections. That's a pretty big hurdle - even using republican claims during the last election that Obama cut people's Medicare as part of your argument.
Those folks who have been by the President's side as he pushes for this legislation who lost children in Newton? They don't think the gun legislation is 'worthless.'
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The only thing that can be said for it is that it's not nothing.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)reinforce that SS support is a core principle.
. . . I was very much of a political junkie when Rostenkowski ran up against that senior buzzsaw . I think you're right that it may be a 'teachable moment' for Democratic candidates thinking about triangulatin' with SS. Maybe even one they can use to generate support - much like the social safety net interest groups and organizations who are generating support and attention over opposition to the President's proposal; much of it fueled by the hair-fires ignited on the left.
Certainly the MSM doesn't give a damn about the cpi . . .
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)so if Dems stood up against any cuts to SS and promote jobs are the way to reduce the debt it seems to me that a winning endeavor since the majority demographics are seniors. I don't see how people can be so dumb to think austerity is the answer. Austerity = loss of jobs = less revenue = more austerity = more loss of jobs = ...it's not fuzzy math how that will work out.
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . but it's interesting to look at the demographic the WH might be directing its politics to. It resembles the coalition of women, younger voters, black and Latino voters that helped win the election. Older voters are likely to still show up. It's these other interests that provide opportunities for the party; like immigration, with the republicans failing to reversing the trend away from their party against the increase in the Latino vote overall.
Where are the republican coalitions? Still protesting 'Obamacare?'
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)where it might be possible to bring people in from both parties. A pipe dream but it does get me asking "what if". Of course it wouldn't last decades as the boomers die off but they are a very large group and could have a lot of power should they join up over SS/Medicare. Still the bottom line IMO is jobs ...that covers the interests of all ages. I myself have a security guard license so hopefully I can get a job to supplement my SS income ...for as long as I can walk and keep transportation.
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . and not so much of a pipe dream in the House. Not an impossibility in the Senate, either. Cinch a primary win and they could find the right vehicle and avenue to 'Cruz' to victory.
. . . and, yes, I think I'll be working as long as my legs hold up . . . and my hands . . . and my back. Everything falls apart right now at the slightest disturbance in the income flow and there's ALWAYS a disturbance in the income flow.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If he really wanted to reach out to a majority why not offer to protect a core interest of both sides? Example: I will not ever put SS cuts of any sort on the table because we Dems are not just supporting Dem seniors on SS/Medicare and our core principles, we are supporting Republican seniors too and no one who loves and respects their own families should be putting any sort of SS cuts on the table. You paid into it and it is not part of the debt problem.
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . something about putting aside the 'fights' of the past and finding common ground with republicans.
He meant political ground . . . not the real ground that you and I stand on. Some things are just worth fighting for. At least that's what our party has believed since I was young enough to be philosophical about Social Security.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Good word for this situation. I bet he never dreamt it would apply to him. He is in a bubble. He really doesn't know that you can wander only so far off the Democratic Partt reservation and still be beloved.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . translation: something you disagree with, but are unable to broach your pathological need to snark.
randome
(34,845 posts)The Club For Growth is excoriating Republicans who come out against CCPI. Boehner looks frightened. Norquist calls it a 'tax increase'.
I'm not sure what kind of calculation went into the offer but the result so far has been Republicans in even greater disarray.
And that's a good thing.
The sky is not falling.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There might be temporary "collateral damage" to the GOP while they try to get their messaging straight. But they will move beyond it, give Frank Lutz a call and get their messages in order in time to pummel Democrats with it by the next election season.
Meanwhile, Obama has once again added to the demoralization of progressive Democrats by proposing something that is totally contrary to their core beliefs, and basically thumbing his nose at them.
And even many moderate Dems are going to be scrambling to figure out how to deal with the fallout from this latest brand of bait-and-switch centrist nonsense.
randome
(34,845 posts)Their brand wears thin on the American psyche and they still don't know what to do about it.
They have survived by momentum and that's running out.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The GOP are like cockroaches. The more they get stomped on the more they multiply.
randome
(34,845 posts)I hope that's what makes this time different.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We are already 3/4 of the way to the total disaster of a Corporate Fascist State that some of us started worrying about and have been warning against since the late 1970's.
It's been a chipping away, as the result both of open (though dishonest) GOP Conservative policies and the continued lack of opposition and the actual support of related policies by the Corporate Democrats over the years.
That chipping away process continues now, even as larger segments of the public finally awaken to and rebel against the results.
Time is running out. Instead of supporting the continuing Democratic Collaboration with this process, we'd better take the advice of Samuel L. Jackson in that commercial during last year's campaign and "Wake the F Up."
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Time is running out, and that may be the game plan.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There might be temporary "collateral damage" to the GOP while they try to get their messaging straight. But they will move beyond it, give Frank Lutz a call and get their messages in order in time to pummel Democrats with it by the next election season. "
Lutz?
Have you been gone that long? Republicans just lost an election and Democrats gained seats in the Senate.
These declarations of doom remind me of the ones about Obama losing the election.
Why are people putting so much effort into insisting that this will doom Democrats who clearly don't support the proposal?
The OP points to Republican hypocrisy, and then people attempt to make the case for a Republican victory.
The infighting among Republicans is over support for their own proposal, which they dare not support.
Democrats are having no trouble rejecting this proposal, which they never supported.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The GOP has their own set of problems, but that does not justify knowingly adding to those of the Democrats.
With Obama's CPI proposal, Democrats are left wondering what the hell their President is up to and why he is proposing something so contrary to a core belief of their party. Why is the PRESIDENT and NUMBER ONE LEADER of the Democratic Party putting on the table something that the "base" clearly hates...and which even "moderates" dislike?
And beyond that....CPI is just another straw thrown on the camel's back....Yes another example of the mixed messages and contrary actions and statements that liberals/progressives are expected to "overlook" from the leadership of the party that claims to represent them.
And, to be perfectly honest, Obama probably would have lost the election if the GOP had not been so awful in their campaigns and had not run an obvious shithead and politically incompetent bonehead like Romney.
This 3 dimensional chess is having only one effect. Diluting any chance of a clear message of liberal/progressive reform that will inspire the "base" -- and which would help to actually convince less -political people in the middle that there are actually constructive alternatives to the Corporate Conservative Swill peddled by the GOP.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Republicans lost an election and they manage to keep the debate on their terms"
You just acknowledged that Republican are in "disarray."
At this point Democrats are the ones defending Social Security.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I guarantee you that by the time the next campaigns are in full swing, the GOP will be a lot more effective again.
But moves like Obama's will leave Democrats having to hem, and haw and say "Er, we didn't really mean that."
I'll bet you on that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Really....TEMPORARY Disarray"
...it's "temporary," how can you claim that "they manage to keep the debate on their terms" when the are currently in "disarray"?
Republicans have been flailing, this is just a continuation of their disarray. Their outreach attempts are like a Twilight Zone episode.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If the GOP were not setting the terms, then this whole "austerity" agenda would be further down the priority list in the Washington agenda and the public discussion.
The "fiscal crisis" would be dismissed by the Democrats as the trumped-up excuse for slashing government that it is.
We would instead be debating things like how large a jobs and infrastructure package would be, how high the minimum wage should be raised, how strongly we should be enforcing financial re-regulation, etc.
But what we have is a stubborn GOP refusing to give in on their own rigid agenda, and Democratic leadership all to eager to placate them with me-too shit like Chained CPI -- instead of actively challenging their bullshit.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If the GOP were not setting the terms, then this whole 'austerity' agenda would be further down the priority list in the Washington agenda and the public discussion."
...I thought Obama was the one who pushed it? Republicans are in disarray.
"But what we have is a stubborn GOP refusing to give in on their own rigid agenda, and Democratic leadership all to eager to placate them with me-too shit like Chained CPI -- instead of actively challenging their bullshit. "
So the GOP is playing "chess"?
Seems to me you're trying to spin a Republican victory out of a claim that they're in disarray and unable to support their own ideas.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)More than anything I wish could follow the news and say "Boy we whipped those GOP bastids, and now they're on the ropes. We can finally push harder for a progressive democratic agenda."
But when the conversation is much more about "the deficit" and "balancing the budget" than it is on stimulating the economy, fighting for workers' rights and economic justice and protecting the safety net then I can only come to one of three VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD conclusions:
1) The Republicans are very good at keeping their advantage over the agenda, and driving the message and policy priorities even after they've experienced a temporary electoral setback
or
2)President Obama and too many other Democratic politicians agree with the GOP Corporate worldview and priorities, and it is they who are pushing for "restraint" and "austerity" because that is what they want.
or
3) All of the Above.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)It's what he is. He represents the Wall Street gang who got us into this mess.
There is no point making excuses for him. He is what he is. He's wanted to gut Social Security and Medicare since Day One.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Devastatingly bad. Stake through the heart bad. Monumental fail bad. Turn over the Senate bad. Just freaking unforgivable bad.
randome
(34,845 posts)A comment here and there from politicians (and the usual vociferousness at DU) but nothing like the devastation predicted by some.
I doubt the American attention span will remember this a year from now.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)They're gonna throw a bunch of links at you now...
RL
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . . of the Professional Obama-Haters Club
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
bigtree
(85,977 posts). . .it's a play on the other ridiculous moniker; apparently okay here to label people with whatever juvenile insult you want. Just trying it on for size. Looks as ridiculous as the other one; looks even more ridiculous with you taking it in and deriving some self-important thrill from ridiculing it (and me).
I think it's downright pathological.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Buy the time you read through all the links it can take days before you can respond ...and then you are only responding to ...you got it ...links.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Pros
RL
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)No doubt about it. I agree, it matters. OTOH the GOP has no problem including flat-out lying as part of their strategy in elections. Time will tell what damage sticks.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)Stop playing hyper-dimensional chess.
If Obama wanted Chained CPI he would have picked up the phone to Boehner's office, let him know, and then shut his mouth until it got slipped in during backroom negotiations.
Instead he put Chained CPI into his extremely public and fully symbolic budget, clearly labeled Chained CPI as a compromise to Boehner, stressed the fact that Democrats were trying to mitigate the damages caused by it, and then sat back and did nothing to defend it.
The logic you guys use to reach the conclusion that Obama wanted Chained CPI is utterly ridiculous. Chained CPI is now dead thanks to Obama getting it into the public eye for the first time in history.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)no REAL Democrat would make excuses for it. It is not part of the debt. SS cuts of any sort go against long established core Democratic principles. So hows church going for ya?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No REAL Democrat would ever bring SS cuts to the table and ..."
The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157
Everything objectionable was part of Carter's proposal, including linking Social Security to the general fund.
The current proposal is lousy, but it has yet to pass.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I guess you missed the word "cuts"."
... but I take it you missed "reduced benefits"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708056-social-securitys-peculiar-partisan-problem
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)A Democrat placed Social Security on the chopping block, a federal program that adds nothing - that's zip, nada, goose-egg - to the national debt.
The social safety net is the crown jewel of the Democratic Party, and a Democratic president offered it up as a sacrificial lamb in negotiations with a political party that is not going to play ball. Not now. Not ever.
That bell cannot be un-rung. It's out there and will be the starting point of negotiations in the future.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)At the time, a large majority of Americans said NO and Democrats swept the 2008 elections. Then it came up again in Obama's Grand Bargain negotiations and the American people said NO. Now, here it is again in Obama's Budget proposal. Again, the American people have had to respond with a great big NO.
It just doesn't make sense that Obama HAD to make this proposal in order to elicit a public outcry against it. Where the hell have you been? There's been public outcry for the past several years. You say this is the first time it's been in the public eye and that's just not true.
This is such a huge blunder by the Obama camp, 2014 does NOT look good for Democrats OR the country. I'm also cynical enough at this point to wonder if it was Third Way purposeful.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)TeaPubliKlans have not so much as caused a hiccup to education deform, seems they don't always kill what the President proposes if they like it enough.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)then he has it backwards he should
lower the age
raise the payment
raise the cap
randome
(34,845 posts)He can't do shit until we get rid of the obstructionist Republicans in the House. Of COURSE what you mentioned is better. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
But those aren't the kind of people we have in the House right now.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
graham4anything This message was self-deleted by its author.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)vociferously for this outrage. If we do that - we might still have a fighting chance in 2014.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)because if they don't do it now they will have to later when it will be less effective.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)President Obama at least up till now. - I will certainly do that.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)
samsingh
(17,593 posts)selling out his supporters time and again - and I've been a hugely ardent Obama fan. even after that first debate.
I'm becoming less of a believer.
i'm looking forward to a Hillary Presidency.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)No joking, I am serious!
I want a rider on any bill cutting entitlements for the poor and needy which allows for legalized suicide, quick and painless.
I want my right to not die a slow lingering death to be as respected as the 2nd ammendment.
I refuse to let the lack of social safety nets degrade my life to living on the streets, cold and hungry.
You want your budget cuts?
Give me my life choice.
(I kinda like the final exit in Soylent Green. Hold the crackers though.)
Rex
(65,616 posts)'Fall in line or else'...it is so boring. One of their new players tried a novel approach, but got destroyed without any evidence. See, all they can do is guess like everyone else. Their projections are flat out sad. Blind obedience is sad, period.
Offering up SS was a pathetic move that the GOP will cash in at a later date now that a Dem proposed it.
The Chained CPI if it is gone, well we will never hear about it again - so be ready to hear about it again.
randome
(34,845 posts)CCPI has no chance of getting off the ground and the GOP is in more disarray than Democrats at this point.
So why don't we all make our wishes known to our Reps and wait to see how this comes out before we say it's either a brilliant move or the sky is falling?
Rex
(65,616 posts)maybe you don't notice it. Hyperbole is stating that 'both parties are just alike'. Why do you have a problem with me speculating, but others can do it no prob? The GOP now has a tool to use against us...we said we would cut SS and now they can pretend to be the defenders no matter how asinine that sounds.
IT is not a brilliant move nor is the sky falling FOR ME. But for some here it is either one or the other. If someone gives me shit, they better be prepared to get it right back in their face.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"It was no mistake, and according to the metrics of those Mr. Obama most closely represents, this will also be considered a success."
Day-um Mr. Pitt, dead on. Outstanding.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)He's a puppet of the billionaires and Wall Street gang who want to pilfer every last dime in this country to further enrich themselves.
There is no getting around it. Having a "D" after his name should not inoculate him from deserved criticism and condemnation.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)everyone in the waiting room was on social security and medicare. i looked around and realized most of these people do`t follow politics as i do. they do`t go on boards like this or other social media. they rely on the msm and radio for their political information. who controls what they listen to and watch? yes...right wing conservatives. so when they hear obama threatening to cut social security the game is over for any democrat who is going to run against a republican. maybe some districts are so solid that the democrats do`t have to worry but if we think it`s going to be easy to elect a senate majority again and even think about taking back the house......good luck.
if obama thinks there will be no backlash then he`s really out of touch with reality. i`m wondering is the difference between the democrats and republicans on this issue be how far they are willing to stick the knife in our backs.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)it's the fault of the Left, who didn't show up to vote.
Rex
(65,616 posts)when the WH fucks up, they asked how and I told them it is when the WH blames the Professional Left. They would rather do that then attack the GOP.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Fifty-six percent of seniors vote repuke. I'm fucking sick of coddling them.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Lots of Serious People will be cheerleaders for any resuscitation of the Chained CPI.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
INdemo
(6,994 posts)in 2008 with the healthcare bill...He told us how great is was and the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)the contents of this excellent article. To hide from the truth of it.
Best piece I've seen from you in awhile, Will. It really expresses the anger and betrayal most all of us are feeling very eloquently.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)"coughing up this Chained CPI thing raced into the Unforced Political Errors Hall Of Fame"
That's not at all what's going on. Obama and his staff are neither stupid, fools, nor incompetent, far from it.
They're the so-called New Democrats. They live and die on corporate ideology.
Who was Obama meeting with last week? from Bloomberg: "Obama Reaches Out to Bankers in Budget Battle "
Obama Meets With Blankfein, Dimon and Moynihan Today
Why call it an error? I guarantee you it's quite intentional, and not based on any miscalculation. Could be it represents his core beliefs. And/or it could be that he sees bankster and corporate support as more important politically than taking money from seniors.
I don't claim to know his exact reasoning, but no way would I see it as an unforced error. It's much worse than that. He's not playing for our team, at least not by my definition of "our team".
Obama's move was stupid? No, not stupid at all. What's stupid is thinking it's merely stupid.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)It totally baffles me why he would touch Social Security. It has nothing to do with the debt and in fact has run a surplus lessening the budget deficits. The only thing required is to raise the cap. For the wealthy their contribution is only small fraction of their total earning as compared to most working class folks in which their contribution is a significant portion, yet both get the same benefits.
