Obama Called Their Bluff: Republicans Admit They Are Too Scared to Cut Social Security

[Tx4obama]

Obama Called Their Bluff: Republicans Admit They Are Too Scared to Cut Social Security

You may have missed it, but over the weekend congressional Republicans admitted that they are terrified that any Social Security cuts will lead to their defeat.

If you have been paying attention to the politics of Obama’s chained CPI offer, you may have noticed that Republicans have been running away like their hair’s on fire away from his proposal.

The reason why is that Republicans are afraid that the president is setting them up. Roll Call reported, “The debate Walden’s remarks has set off inside the GOP shows many Republicans harbor deep-seated fears about publicly supporting the entitlement cuts they supposedly back and have demanded Obama and other Democrats embrace since taking control of the House in 2011…Many GOP operatives fear Obama’s embrace of chained consumer price index, a mechanism to slow the growth of Social Security benefits over time, is a trap — a means of getting Republicans to support the policy on the record only to see Democrats savage them for it down the line.”

The Republican strategists who suspect this are partially correct. President Obama is using Chained CPI to set up a win/win/win situation for Democrats. Republicans have to choose between raising taxes in order to get the Chained CPI, arguing for Chained CPI without the tax increase, or rejecting Chained CPI. If Republicans express any desire to cut Social Security, Democrats will savage them for it during next year’s election. If Republicans agree to raise taxes at all, the base of their party will erupt in rage. If Republicans split and some of them reject Chained CPI, it will never become law. (Chained CPI probably won’t become law anyway, because Harry Reid and many Senate Democrats have promised to oppose any changes to Social Security.)

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/obama-called-bluff-republicans-admit-scared-cut-social-security.html

[pinto]

1. Good read.

[HockeyMom]

2. My thoughts exactly

A bluff, or sting, on the Repubes. FORCE THEM to defend SS and Medicare. Turn it around on THEM. If true, Obama is a BRILLANT!

[IrishAyes]

19. Didn't we always know it, sister! He's the MAN!

[liberalmike27]

90. Good for you Obama

You've alienated your base, most congressional democrats, and given republicans much fodder with which to use to both alienate your base, and attack you on Social Security.

Man, you are playing some chess dude. Soon you may even get out of Class E, the patzers.

[demwing]

3. "If Republicans express any desire to cut Social Security, Democrats will savage them for it..."

How savage will that savaging be? All the Republicans have to do is accept the chained CPI and demand no tax increases. We can TRY to savage them, but since our President offered it up, all the repugs have to do is laugh, and point out that since Obama offered it, pretending we think it bad now is either hypocrisy or entrapment.

[pinto]

4. The fuller context of the quote -

The Republican strategists who suspect this are partially correct. President Obama is using Chained CPI to set up a win/win/win situation for Democrats. Republicans have to choose between raising taxes in order to get the Chained CPI, arguing for Chained CPI without the tax increase, or rejecting Chained CPI. If Republicans express any desire to cut Social Security, Democrats will savage them for it during next year’s election. If Republicans agree to raise taxes at all, the base of their party will erupt in rage. If Republicans split and some of them reject Chained CPI, it will never become law. (Chained CPI probably won’t become law anyway, because Harry Reid and many Senate Democrats have promised to oppose any changes to Social Security.)

[demwing]

6. Sorry Pinto, but that didn't answer anythjing

You just repeated the comment, adding no new information.

[pinto]

11. I think the gist of the opinion here is that new CPI is tied to a tax increase. Repubs will balk.

I've heard the point brought up recently that the chained CPI is dead in the water in this scenario. Coupled with a tax increase Repubs won't support any of the package. And if Repubs look to carve out the CPI from tax changes it won't make it to the floor of the Senate. That seems to be the author's take here.

Apparently there's some political maneuvering going on, I guess.

I wasn't trying to answer anything, just wanted to point out the fuller context of the author's point of view on it all.

[MNBrewer]

18. But so what if the Republicans balk at tax increases?

Before: Republicans wanted SS cuts and no tax increases. Democrats wanted no SS cuts and some tax increases.

Now: Republicans still want SS cuts and no tax increases. Democrats now want SS cuts and some tax increases.

Seems both parties now agree on the SS cuts and what's keeping them from implementing them is a disagreement on tax increases. Such PROGRESS. Frikkin BRILLIANT strategery!

[L0oniX]

32. Isn't it just wonderful how Obama has brought the parties together over SS cuts.

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

[paleotn]

39. I certainly hope that's the case and the article is accurate.....

...or possibly Obama has no real problem with chained CPI as a means to reach a "grand bargain", but luckily blundered into a good position for the Democrats. Time will tell.

[AndyA]

83. Yes, a brilliant move!

Now, Democrats are unhappy with President Obama for even suggesting such a thing as SS cuts, and he appears to be a huge hypocrite because just a few months ago, he was so concerned about doing anything that might further burden the middle class, the elderly, or those living in poverty.

Brilliant move, Obama! You've managed to piss off Democrats who voted for you based on your campaign rhetoric, you've given the GOP something else to attack with, and you've given lots of Democrats a reason to not vote in 2014, because they perceive Dems and Repukes to be one and the same.

Many will not consider the SCOTUS, or any of the other important things that we need Democrats in office to protect. They will look at their personal situation, and see that they have less and remember that Obama said how bad that would be, then turned right around a few months after he got elected again and put forth a proposal to make sure they had less. Not a good move.

This is not a game, this is people's lives that Obama is playing with.

[Leontius]

98. I'm starting to have a hard time understanding who the enemy of a strong progressive society is.

It used to be simple, basicly all conservatives and most all republicans, now ?

[BlueStreak]

13. No they don't

The Republicans can include chained CPI in any plans they put forward. And Obama has given them the cover to do so. How can any Democrat attack a Republican for doing that when Obma put it in his own damn budget?

The fallacy of this article is that the writer apparently believes that everything is negotiated. That simply is not true. Many of the worst things have become law be riding along with other bills.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me to see chained CPI passed as an amendment to a post office naming bill.

[IrishAyes]

17. No, no, no!

The Repugs would gladly accept the chained CPI but can't have it w/o the tax increases they'll ever agree to. President Obama has sated clearly more than once (and will probably continue to do so) that this is NOT the budget he WANTS. Most Democratic legislators will refuse to pass it also. It's dead in the water and was from the start.

Entrapment? I don't think so. President Obama merely pretended to offer Repugs what they've always demanded, and now they'll have to back down like the cowards and hypocrites they are. It's chess, not entrapment.

Yes, the R's are already trying to claim President Obama is throwing granny under the bus; but I think - and pray to God - that enough people will see through that very thin ruse.

I've said more than a few times that President Obama surely saw the outrage to come and wanted it. Can all you conservatives out there say, "Checkmate!" Better get used to it, because that's what just happened to you.

I love being right. Mercy, I do love it. Let me be right on this if no other, oh Lord; let me be right.

[demwing]

62. It gives me no joy

but I don't believe you're right on this

All Obama has done is give cover to the Republicans, and they have wasted no time in using it.

[IrishAyes]

78. I appreciate your restrained response

Truly I do. But if you're any kind of real Democrat - and how can we really know one another solely online? - then regretfully I must respond that I think you're caving too easily. From your side, of course, how do you know I'm not some kind of poser trying to encourage the left into a beeline for disaster?

As for the outcome, we will probably just have to wait and see. But I can't help believing I'm right on this anymore than you can help believing you are. For the sake of the nation and our party, we can't afford to be wrong.

[Left Coast2020]

118. I'll give you an "AMEN"

I had a feeling he wasn't serious about this. There has been a chess/poker game and Mr. O. is likely winning. I hope all the "Dem" haters will now say they not thinking clearly. There is post on front page stating Dr. Dean may leave party if he goes through with this. CPI won't happen. I suspect we will read about this when he releases his book after he leaves office. Obama has to be a better poker player than I first thought.

[Tx4obama]

5. Checkmate!

[MNBrewer]

21. Gross

[PotatoChip]

35. +1

[Auntie Bush]

47. You said it!

We've been saying this all along! Let's say it again...CHECKMATE!

[freshwest]

51. Oh, I just caught on about the colors of the pieces. Never noticed it before.

That has always been a weird image to me. Now I get the point. Although I still don't understand the green lines. He's doing what he promised:

Obama Has Released A 27-Point Plan For His Second Term, And It's A Doozy



Read more:

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-plan-second-term-economy-jobs-election-2012-10?op=1#ixzz2QUaB7HY0

[sheshe2]

58. Excellent link, freshwest!

Thank you!

[demwing]

65. Oh for Gods sake, wake up

I don't see why you have to take an obvious error and pretend it's all part of a brilliant plan. You sound like a cult follower, not an educated voter.

[L0oniX]

94. Hey calm the hell down will ya ...it's a church and they have a right to worship as they see fit.

...and thanks for trying to wake them up ...however they seem destined to go down with the ship.

[n2doc]

7. So on the positive side, he showed that they are liars and hypocrites

which everybody knew already. On the negative side, voters have one less reason to fear republicans. Was it worth it?

[L0oniX]

23. I fear Dems now too. Who knows if they will cut my throat for money or not.

Now I have to find out who is a real Dem. I can't just assume anymore.

[pscot]

124. Watch what they do, not what they say

Out of the mouth of Tricky Dick himself. By their deeds shall ye know them.

[Auntie Bush]

8. I'm glad I always had faith in PBO. Knew he was a master chess player.

[DrDan]

9. in chess, always good to have lots of pawns

[Bucky]

103. Thank you. Nice to see my parents' retirement income is an expendable piece in this game.

[DrDan]

107. as is retirement income for all seniors

[bvar22]

10. This game isn't over yet,

and won't be until 2014 when the Republicans can do this:

[font size=6][center] We SAVED your Social Security from the Obama CUTS!
Vote REPUBLICAN![/font][/font][/center]

...of course, you can explain how he wasn't really serious,
and it was all just a big bluff,
and he was just fucking with us,
and deep down in his secret heart he would NEVER really cut SS,
and it was all so brilliant,
and we should never take him at his word,

....but that is going to be a hard sell with all the Video of President Obama offering up cuts to Social Security.

[L0oniX]

24. Yea ...they can couple it along with him saying he will not cut SS.

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

-President Barack Obama in the State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011

[Summer Hathaway]

36. This meme is stunning in its total lack of logic.

Yes, of course, the GOP will campaign on:

"We demanded chained CPI. Then Obama offered it attached to increases in taxes, and we said NO! That's because we really didn't want chained CPI in the first place, even though we've said we do for decades."

Seriously?

The Dems have a very long history of championing SS. The Republicans have an equally long history of trying to gut it, privatize it, and ultimately destroy it. And you honestly believe that this incident is going to wipe out all of that previous history, and the GOP will suddenly be seen as the saviors of the very program they have denounced for decades?

Yeah, right. That's gonna happen.

I realize the average Republican politician is dumber than a bag of hammers, but even they are aware (somewhat vaguely aware, for most of them) that we live in an age of instant access to video clips, transcripts, recorded interviews, etc. Should any GOPer attempt to declare him or her self as a 'savior of SS', his/her Dem opponent will clobber them with THEIR OWN WORDS demonstrating just the opposite in print/televised ads.

In addition to the obvious, you might want to consider that most voters are not following this budget proposal story at all - no less to the nit-picking extent that DUers are following it. This issue is not even on most people's radar NOW - so it won't even be a vague memory by the time the mid-term campaigning is in full swing.

Anyone who would believe that the GOP have suddenly become the champions of the SS program is a dumbass - and, as we know, dumbasses will vote (R) no matter what.

[truebluegreen]

43. Except they didn't demand chained CPI.

Only one person (outside the punditocracy) is advocating that; even the Repukes aren't that stupid. I'm not saying they aren't that mean-spirited and short-sighted etc etc etc. They certainly are; they're just not stupid enough to say that, in so many words, in public.

But yeah, "most voters" are not following this that closely. On the other hand, the Repukes have now "got tape." They've got the Grand Bargainer in Chief on tape offering up cuts to Social Security. Do you seriously think the Pukes won't run on that in 2014? They ran on "cuts to Medicare" in 2010, to great effect and with far less cause.

[Summer Hathaway]

46. Chained CPI has been one of their many wet dreams

for a very long time.

People who pay attention know that. People who don't pay attention, and therefore don't know it, will not have their votes influenced in any way by something they were unaware of in the first place.

Given the GOP's long history of wanting to gut SS, suggesting they would campaign on being its "savior" is laughable. It's like saying that if a Republican fought a bill that would disallow access to an abortion after four weeks into a pregnancy on the basis that it should be six weeks, they can campaign on being the champions of a woman's right to an abortion.

It is utter nonsense.

Of course, we will both have to wait until the mid-term election campaigns are in full swing to be proven right or wrong.

I say the GOP, as a whole, won't even go near this "we are the saviors of SS" meme. And if any individual attempts to, they will be hoisted on their own petard in record time.

We'll both have to wait and see how this plays out - and we can revisit the topic then.

[truebluegreen]

49. Nobody said it wasn't one of their wet dreams.

And saying the Republicans as a whole won't go near it as a campaign issue in the midterms? If I had a million dollars I would bet it...they campaigned in 2010 on Obama's "cuts" to Medicare, while they were trying to voucherize it! Ryan campaigned against those same "cuts" while he was including them in his catfood budget! Twice. Yet seniors picked rMoney/Ryan. Fear-mongering works.

And if you want to argue about the level of informed public opinion, look there first, and then tell me how this won't matter in the next election.

[Summer Hathaway]

52. I've already explained why this won't matter in the next election.

I doubt the vast majority of voters even know about this proposed budget, no less the details it contains.

Political websites are populated by political junkies, who go over every comma in a proposed budget with a fine-toothed comb.'

The average citizen doesn't.

It's as simple as that.

[truebluegreen]

59. I guess I need to be clearer: I don't buy your explanation,

based on facts in evidence. QED.

Facts would indicate that what Obama did with Medicare in the ACA was a good thing. The average senior voter didn't get that memo. Did he? The average voter may or may not know about this budget now; are you seriously trying to argue he or she never will? If so, I have a bridge for you, cheap!

[Summer Hathaway]

60. Will people ever know

that a budget proposal that never came to anything once existed?

Most of them won't ever know. That's because most of them won't ever care.

[truebluegreen]

61.

If it matters to Republicans, in terms of political advantage, the people will know.

Are you trying to argue that Republicans are too honest, or bipartisan, or restrained in terms of political attacks to bring it up? Are you trying to argue that they won't hammer on something that would give them a political advantage, even if it didn't happen or--like, say, death panels--it wasn't true?

Really?

[truebluegreen]

64. Yes, they will know.

Since Republicans will see a political advantage in telling them.

As they did it 2012, as the great defenders of Medicare--didn't matter that it wasn't true, did it?

[Summer Hathaway]

66. This budget proposal

despite what you might think from reading this website, is NOT even on the radar screen of most voters. It is NOT a big-issue item out in the real world.

So, no, the GOP will not be campaigning on an issue that the voters never recognized as an issue in the first place.

No doubt they'll find (and/or fabricate) all kinds of things to their advantage. But trying to drum up outrage over something most people never knew about, or have long since forgotten about, would be an incredible waste of time.

[truebluegreen]

68. What part of this don't you understand?

I am not talking about NOW, I am not talking about whether the average voter is paying attention NOW, I'm talking about the next generation of attack ads.

And if you think it is too far away, too far into the future, I think you are very naive. The Repukes will trot out their attack ads, with footage of our (allegedly) Democratic president advocating cuts to SS and the sheeple will believe. That's what they do.

If you can't see that, well, all I can say is I hope you never go for a job as an election strategist.

[Summer Hathaway]

69. What part of it do you not understand?

If the voters don't care about it now, they won't care about it then.

You can't get any traction out of outrage that was never there in the first place, no matter how hard you try to kick-start it after the fact.

And who are the GOP going to be 'selling' this outrage to? Their own people, who will swallow anything and vote (R) anyway.

If you think anyone is going to be basing their vote on something either side said in a budget proposal that was DOA a year before, you're delusional. Between now and then, a million other issues will arise on both sides of the aisle, and this whole issue won't even be a vague memory.

[Chef Eric]

81. The Republican noise machine always find ways to manufacture new outrage.

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

This chained CPI nonsense will give them another opportunity to do so.

And it makes no difference whether this will be a "distant memory."

Remember the 2004 ads stating that Kerry was never a "real" war hero? That his record in Viet Nam was nothing but a sham? Funny, I don't remember voters ever being concerned about Kerry's war record... until the swift boat ads came out and the media decided it was big news.

Of course, Kerry's military career had ended thirty years earlier.

[Summer Hathaway]

112. But then there's the reality of the situation ...

We political junkies tend to forget that the things we talk about on message boards are not always being discussed by non-junkies (average voters) out there in the real world.

And let's face it, any discussion about budget proposals are just not 'sexy' enough to be the topic of conversation at the office water-cooler, or the local diner. Most people (admittedly, myself included for the most part) aren't all that interested in initial proposals. They're interested in a final budget being arrived at, and mostly only in terms of how it affects them: are my income taxes going up or down? Are my government benefits going up or down?

Most people simply don't care what's being said or not said at this stage of the game.

I don't see what gain there would be for the GOP to bring this up at all in the mid-term campaigns. "You know, folks, a year ago Obama drew up a budget proposal that included chained CPI." I imagine the immediate reaction from their constituents would be, "So what? Isn't that what you asked for? Why didn't you take him up on it?"

So what's the rejoinder to that? "Yeah, but we're Republicans and we're supposed to want to cut SS benefits. Obama's a Dem, so it's a bad thing for HIM to say it, not us." Not a very snappy comeback, is it?

As any stand-up comic will tell you, if it takes twenty minutes to explain the punchline, you've already lost the audience. Do you think Republicans are going to go about explaining the budget proposal process to people who weren't interested in the first place, in order to get to their "punchline"?

It's a soundbyte world out there. The GOP will always try to gin up the outrage among the voters, i.e. the Dems want to take everyone's guns away! The Dems want to waste your hard-earned tax dollars on unnecessary pre-school education! The Dems want to use diplomacy instead of standing up to our sworn enemies!"

But mentioning chained CPI just isn't the kind of thing you can get people worked-up over, especially a year after the fact, and when it never came to fruition anyway.

The point you raised about Kerry is another kettle of fish. W's lack of military experience (such as it was) was a big topic of conversation, especially after the Mission Accomplished aircraft landing debacle. When Kerry, a decorated war hero) became our candidate, they knew they couldn't 'rehabilitate' W's military service - so they had no choice but to try and make Kerry's experience questionable, possibly even fabricated. "Looks like Kerry isn't such a war hero after all," was an easy-to-digest sell. And, sadly, it sold extremely well.

Look at the soundbytes they used against Obama in 2008: the birth certificate issue, being associated with a "radical extremist" pastor like Rev. Wright. And people listened, because they were topics easily understood by the average Joe. And what revs up the OUTRAGE! (particularly among low-info voters) more effectively than 'radical religion' and questionable citizenship for a would-be president?

Obama included chained CPI in a proposed budget? zzzzzzzzzz ... The reaction would be: wake me up when you get to something interesting, and something I can actually understand without a tutorial about how the budget process works.

On top of all of the above, you CAN'T hold yourself out, literally for decades, as the party that thinks SS benefits should be cut, and then turn around and say, "Except for that one moment in time when we didn't." We both KNOW how easily-confused the average low-info GOP voter is - offering up a soundbyte that takes a lengthy explanation as to why you changed your tune, after indoctrinating your adherents for decades into the "chained CPI" is the right-way-to-go school of thought - well, as I said, you're going to lose your audience in record time.

The mid-term campaigns are still a year away. There will be ample time for other actions by Obama and The Dems, between now and then, that will be much "sexier", more easily explained issues for the GOP to exploit. Chained CPI is not going to be one of them.

Not only will that dog not hunt - that dog will lie moldering in its grave long before the year is out.

[bvar22]

57. This is from the lAST time Obama pushed Social Security into the pot in 2011,

but it is pertinent to THIS discussion:

"
Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."

Conyers added ""My response to him (President Obama) is TO MASS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROTEST THIS."

This declaration is significant both politically and morally as Conyers is not only the second most senior representative in the House, but was also the first member of Congress to endorse candidate Obama. Conyers doesn't merely draw a moral "line in the sand' but he presents a candid picture of violent contrasts between himself and the first African-American president.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

Can you document YOUR claim that a Chained CPI was in the Republican Budget?
I don't believe they demanded cuts to Social Security as you claim.


People who pay even closer attention than YOU do KNOW that cutting Social Security
and Privatizing it (giving the Trust Fund to Wall Street) has been a MAJOR goal of the DLC (3rd Way) since the early 90s.


Is THIS really too much to expect from a "Democratic" President?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Jim Lane]

73. The flaw in your argument is that millions of American voters are illogical.

We didn't need this maneuver (if that's what it was) for the truth to be obvious. Long before the last election, it was clear, to anyone who paid any degree of attention to public affairs, that the Republicans were liars and hypocrites, that they would oppose anything that might give Obama a perceived success, that they were the tools of the 1% and the Christofascists, and that they were engaged in pure obstructionism and government-by-terrorism.

All that was known. Despite its being known, the GOP pulled nearly half the vote for President, and came even closer to half with their slate of House candidates (close enough to keep control).

There is a ray of hope, though. It's that you're wrong when you say that "dumbasses will vote (R) no matter what." We can get through to some of those people. Some who voted (R) in 2010 switched to (D) in 2012.

I guess when they vote (D) they're transformed from "dumbasses" to "low-information voters" or the like.

Anyway, the key issue is how this will play out among those voters, who aren't firmly committed to either party. I side with those in this thread who think it will play out badly -- illogical though that result is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Thank you ...

And it would do those spreading this "They're gonna use the CCPI against Democrats" narrative a world of good if they actually listened to what Democrats are actually saying about the CCPI.

No Democrat has come out for it ... President Obama proposed it along with increased revenue; Democrats in safe districts are vocally opposed to it; Democrats in close districts are saying, "I'm opposed to CCPI, but will discuss it if the gop will discuss increased revenue."

[JHB]

95. Did Republicans suddenly become forthright and consistent?

Or will they remain the weaseling say-anything-to-win opportunists that we've become familiar with?

They didn't hesitate to paint themselves as defenders of Medicare last time around, why do you expect them to be any different now?

[Hoyt]

72. Anyone inclined to vote for a Democrat will know the truth.

[loudsue]

12. There is no way to put lipstick on this pig.

Obama OFFERED to cut social security benefits for the most frail members of society, when they began to need money the most. He can't un-do what he did, and no amount of spinning will EVER show anything to the contrary. He said it. He put his name to it. It was stupid, BECAUSE it was so cruel. Wicked cruel. The republicans are going to eat democrats lunch come 2014 because of it.

[daa]

16. Not Obama, Obama ANS democrats

Pelosi, Hoyer among others willing to cut social security.

Van you spell bloodbath just like 2010? Obama wants cut cut social security $60,000 on a coupe, raise their Medicare premiums hundreds a year, and raise taxes (by the same chained CPI). Democrats have not come out strongly against it.

Bush wanted to privatize social security and need his presidency in year 5, same as Obama. Bush spent all his political and so did Obama.

[truebluegreen]

50. +100

[Kolesar]

56. You and about 44 DUers are the only people who will remember "chained whatever"

None of my friends ever talked about it. And my friends are quite well read.

[Skittles]

110. none of your friends?

[Kolesar]

113. Worked real hard on that one, didn't you? eom

[Skittles]

114. didn't have to

you made it soooooo easy

[Kolesar]

115. Peculiar fantasy world you live in , Skittles

[Skittles]

117. I live in the real world

but I do kind of envy those who do not

[just1voice]

71. That ain't stoppin the "sales team"

They're worshipers, they support everything Obama says and does 100%. Talking about issues with them is a complete waste of time, it's like talking into a speaker cabinet with noise coming out of it as if it can hear you.

[loudsue]

84. It's not just the leadership of the dem party that has caved in to the republican ideals.

Many of the rank & file democrats on this board now lean so far to the right I'm afraid they're going to tip over.

[tblue]

87. He frightened a lot of vulnerable people

with this ruse, if that's what it was. Not very kind. You don't toy with people's livelihoods like that.

I don't believe it was any kind of ruse. He would sign this into law if he could.

[loudsue]

91. Those are my thoughts too. A very unkind and unwise thing to do.

He should have known better. Either that, or he really doesn't understand vulnerability.

[disndat]

100. Obama is trying to deal with the lowdown, no good

Tea Partiers funded by the $$$Koch Bros. You don't fight those vicious people who are out to destroy our democracy with wet noodles.

[tblue]

125. You fight by telling them no.

Not by asking them, "Is this better?" Any fight is better than doing the work of the other side. IMHO.

[Triana]

14. They ALL ought to be too scared to touch it or even SUGGEST touching it!! Including Obama.

Torches & pitchforks time for the bastards - all of them who dare suggest that our earned benefit money that they stole or allowed to be stolen shouldn't be paid back so it can be used for the purpose it was intended for -- giving retirees some income in their later years.

F*CK the greedy wealthy and tax-evading corprats who don't want to pony up what they stole.

I'd like to skewer the lot of them.

[IrishAyes]

15. Music to my ears

After an admittedly shaky start myself, I've looked forward with great anticipation to hearing more people jump on board and applaud President Obama's leadership. Trust me, before it's over a lot of the fiercest opponents will not only eat their words but deny them!

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. Hurrah! He used the poor and the elderly as human shields!

What a courageous and honorable act!

[L0oniX]

30. Thanks to the sacrificial SS offer the Repukes are smelling blood in the water.

They can all go choke on the smell of the burnt offering in their church of mindless worship. Any losses of real Dem seats in 2014 will be they and their g0d's fault. Thank fully there are enough real Dem's here that this place is still worth coming to.

[Demeter]

22. I wish to God Obama WAS setting them up

but I find it far too unlikely. Obama is setting us up. the question is will the GOP push us over?

[reformist2]

25. If Chained CPI goes down in flames, I think *we* deserve the credit, not Obama.

[L0oniX]

31. +1

[deutsey]

34. The outrage seemed to be the electricity that made the third rail deadly to touch

for anyone on either side of the aisle.

[Summer Hathaway]

42. Oh, yes, of course!

It's just like when Obama campaigned on the repeal of DADT back in 2008, worked towards repealing it, and then followed through.

He never meant to repeal it in the first place - it was the keyboard warriors who 'held his feet to the fire' that caused him to do exactly what he said he'd do all along.

Rinse. Lather. Then repeat the BS.

[freshwest]

67. Along with the much hated Eric Holder who never wavered on that subject:

Marriage Equality

In February 2011, Holder announced that the DOJ would no longer defend cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Holder had recommended this course of action to the President, arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, as laws that prohibit the rights of gay couples do not meet the legal principle of strict scrutiny.

Holder cited changing law in support of his action: "Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional."

This decision was prompted by legal deadlines in two federal cases in Connecticut and New York, where same-sex married couples argued that DOMA’s ban on federal benefits to those in gay marriages approved by the individual states, violates the Constitution’s requirement of equal treatment.[51][52]

In February 2012, Holder reaffirmed his position and stated that the DOJ would not defend DOMA in a legal challenge brought by members of the US military, who were seeking benefits for their same-sex spouses, including: medical insurance, visitation rights in military hospitals and survivor benefits.[53]

Holder has also advocated for the rights of the 36,000 same-sex partnerships where Americans are in relationships with non-US citizens. In May 2011, Holder set aside the decision to deport Paul Dorman, an Irish man who was in a same-sex partnership with a New Jersey citizen. Holder then asked immigration officials to reconsider their decision in order to determine whether Dorman can be considered a spouse under New Jersey law and whether Dorman would be considered a spouse under immigration law were it not for the Defense of Marriage Act. This action prompted some other immigration judges to halt the deportation proceeds of other foreigners in same-sex couples.[54][55]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Marriage_Equality

[DainBramaged]

26. We'll see there has been A LOT of bad feelings on this board for the President

Imagine when Hillary wins.......

[Iliyah]

37. LOL

It will be the same venom.

[L0oniX]

27. SS recipients are so happy that they could help out with the poker game.

I'll mark you down as not being a real Dem IMO. When we loose seats in 2014 the blame will be squarely on him and the other fake Dem's who supported this "game".

[bvar22]

93. When the BEST defense of a sitting President is:

[font size=3]Obama was LYING to your Face,
AND you ARE so stupid that you believed him!!!
Hahahahah! The JOKES on YOU![/font]

When THAT is that BEST defense that the True Believers can come up for a sitting President,
then we have a REAL problem.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Iliyah]

28. Thanks Tx4obama!

As predicted. GOPers are not afraid of cutting SSI and Medicare, its the revenue, but Pres O is exposing them. 2014 looks up for Dems!

[hue]

29. K&R!!

[msanthrope]

33. It was rather amusing, watching certain posters stock up on catfood....nt

[Kolesar]

55. Ha!

Ok, well said.
But "certain posters" were posting the same insincere outrage over and over again.

[SmittynMo]

38. You make it sound like this was his intention all along, but,

the fact he put it on the table, scares the hell out of me. I don't buy it at all. He went against his word to the American people. I'm sorry, but this is NOT a game!!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

40. SS should never be on the table.

Gamesmanship or not.

[defacto7]

41. What I don't get is

what "savaging" could Democrats do to Republicans that they are not already doing? What Dems are voting for the Repubs these days?

Unfortunately, this sounds more like a conservative beating war drums to gather what's left of the RW constituency. It has a unifying effect when it is made to look like the RW is being duped.

I reserve my opinions on this article's views as I'm not sure what it's real goal is.

[pasto76]

44. wow so many of you still dying to be "right" about how non-liberal the President is

ignoring that the right has been completely and utterly anti tax for 2 decades now. In my army the sequester is starting to tear through our budgets, all so that the corporations can have no tax increases.

voting against all and any tax increase on anything is their goddamn main plank in their platform. Seems like the president has them in a corner. Again.

"willing" to cut SS? thats a stretch isnt it. Since nothing has been cut. Right? Right. What they have done is use "cuts" as a tool. Seems to be working. Again.

[Doctor_J]

79. And many are dying to be right about how

Boner is really Obama's bitch and if we look hard we'll see that Obama is really FDR.

Dream on!

[msongs]

45. alternatively, Republicans defend SS against democratic budget that threatens cuts n t

[MotherPetrie]

48. Please, like Obama would set his good buddy Boehner up.

[DonCoquixote]

53. Sorry

But as I said before, even if he knew with 100 percent certainty that the GOP would deny cuts, even if he knew them the way we know 2 and 2 make four, it was still a bad idea. I hate to be vulgar, but just as you cannot regain your virginity, you cannot take back the idea of cutting SS. Why did I use that analogy, because, like many people who lose their virginity to some fool, you never, ever, forget the damage done, and the GOP will not let us forget that Obama played with the idea.

[graham4anything]

54. 80/20 Democratic party that likes Obama 80% the others 20%

the anti-Obama people keep thinking Americans are Boehner and the tea party

Americans are Americans. Our enemies are not our neighbors.

The complete and total annhiliation of the republican/tea/libertarian party is at hand.

If it means 5% of the party leaves, it leaves 80-20.

Why anyone wouldn't want 80-20 I don't know.
It's like 1964.
Many democratic voters went with George Wallace and other racist candidates akin to the tea party today.
LBJ won a landslide in 1964, Barry Goldwater and his teaparty philosophy was crushed.

The goal is forever.

Not for show on one day in 2013.

80-20 (or 75-25).

BTW-the repulicans have the house.
If people get mad at the house, who gets hurt? The republicans
Matters little the issue

INS in the house will be outs
outs will be ins.
the Senate is different, only 1/3 the seats are changed.

great article, thanks for posting it!

[demwing]

63. This is delusional

and sad.

[blkmusclmachine]

70. Rope a dope bullsh/t 11 Dimensional checkers.

TERRIBLE OPTICS. Just ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE.

2014 is gonna be UGLY!

IM in a PEACH of a mood.

[bigtree]

74. kick

interesting theory . . . too many variables for me to call this good or reasonable politics (if this is really the case), although I do think this is all about some kind of political strategy of the President's. I would have begged him off of this, tho . . .

[Doctor_J]

75. Dumbest "reasoning" ever

He's the one who bluffed, and now the Repukes can hang "He wants to cut SS, but we won't let him" around him and the entire party for next year.

[JoePhilly]

76. Won't happen.

[MNBrewer]

88. And why not?

[JoePhilly]

89. The GOP can't ...

simultaneously demand cuts to entitlements AND also demand no cuts to social security.

Obama's budget proposal was never going to pass. It won't get drafted as a piece of legislation.

After this blows over, and it will blow over, just as it has 6 or 7 times already in the last 4 years, the GOP will again start to demand cuts to SS.

They can't help it. They hate those programs and there is no way for them to pretend to love those programs while simultaneously trying to kill those programs.

They can't run of the debt and deficit while blaming SS, which is what they've been doing, and then not do it anymore. Do they drop the debt issue? Na, they can't.

The GOP really has no where to go.

[MNBrewer]

97. IMO, Obama's agreement to the SS cuts is a game changer

so invoking the past on this is, I think, not the way it's going to ultimately play out.

[Liberalynn]

85. I keep going back to Boner's wording

"if the President thinks entitlements need reforming." Note that's not a we the pukey pigs are willing to own this too type of statement.

Yes we know RePukes want to cut SS but we also know they are the type to want to have their cake and eat it too.

And sadly there are voters in their party who will let them do exactly that.

They try to play both sides of the court too many times to count. They don't always get away with it, but sometimes they do.

Our side shouldn't be giving them any room to do that with bluffs.

We need to stick to our principles and defend SS with all we have.

[tridim]

104. "Obama wants to cut SS (a lie) and we want to destroy SS and privatize the whole thing." Choose.

It's just about as black and white as an issue gets.

I know who I'm voting for. Democratic voters are not stupid.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. You do realize that this article is fraudulent? Zero quotes to support its thesis.

I checked the article, and the articles it linked to: I don't see a quote, in either that article or the linked articles, by a Republican saying that they’re too scared to cut Social Security.

I even posted this as a comment on the article page, and the moderator answers by trying to change the subject.

Seems like a Third Way site. Acts like one, too.

[tridim]

105. Awww Manny was wrong again.

[greiner3]

82. This is an OP;

I can believe in more than Kpete's;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022675866

'New Tom Tomorrow. Right. On. Target.'

I have to believe THIS version of what is going on in President Obama's mind.

I can't afford to become apathetic about politics (Progressive) at my stage in life.

[grahamhgreen]

86. Idiotic. Assinine. Foolhardy. He has the R's defending SS. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Assinine

[SDjack]

92. Pres. Obama has taken a page from Pres. Truman's playbook.

Pres. Truman had a do-nothing Republican Congress that claimed it wanted to enact civil rights legislation, extend SS, and enact healthcare legislation. But, they did nothing but delay, expecting Dewey to whip Truman in the looming election. Truman called Congress into special session and promised to sign any legislation that Congress passed. No legislation was passed. Truman rose from about 32% approval to win the election four months later. The Republicans have again blundered into the same position of being challenged to vote on what they say they want.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

121. I hope you are right

This is at a level, with too many viewpoints and upsetting predictions...and ugliness...that I don't know what to think. Plus, I can't predict the future.

As someone who has been a great admirer of the President's I want to also see clearly. Thing of it is, there's also an emotional aspect to this--it is tough to know what to do with it when you have seen someone as brilliant, genuine and trustworthy, and seen much that validates that perception.

I'm just not going to pretend any level of understanding here....except that I don't agree with doind any damage to SS

[Jakes Progress]

96. Stupid

Both Obama's offer to cut SS and the OP's defense.

The outcome will be that now the subject of cutting entitlements has been broached and is open. Obama did that.

It won't happen this time for two reasons. Liberals have ripped O a new one because of this. Obama can't expect Democratic congressional support for this right wing idea like he got for his and bill bennet's education plan or for extending bush's patriot crap.

The second reason is because republicans won't support it. They can't ignore the huge gift that Obama gave them in the form of a campaign topic. They couldn't wait to start attacking him for wanting to hurt seniors. It has begun and will figure heavily in the mid-terms. At every senior political rally, the cry will be to elect republicans to keep Obama from cutting SS.

Like I said. Stupid.

[TekGryphon]

99. Utterly predictable. I feel bad for the chicken-littles playing hyper-dimensional chess...

Wait, no I don't.

If Obama wanted Chained CPI he would have called Boehner and then shut his mount and never mentioned C-CPI until it was put in the budget during the backroom negotiation.

Instead he put C-CPI into his very public and purely symbolic budget proposal, clearly labels it as a regretful compromise to Boehner's obstinate Republicans, assures the public that the administration is looking to mitigate damages from this awful plan with protections, and then sat back and watched as C-CPI, now on the front stage for the first time, got ripped to shreds.

And people are actually stupid enough to think that this was Obama's way of supporting C-CPI, despite 5 years of championing benefits to seniors, veterans, the sick and disabled, and the unemployed.

Absolutely ridiculous. I don't feel sorry for them at all. Takes a willful obliviousness to current events to come away from this seeing anything other than a brilliant outcome to a simple maneuvering.

[John2]

111. I think there is more there

to meet the eye than is being claimed here. It could be that Mr Obama truly believes in what he is saying. It could be that he truly believes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem with the Debt and preventing the U.S. from their other obligations, such as spreading his views on foreign Policy. In order to carry out the commitments that he is promising, he needs a huge military.

You know something caught me in the President's second of third debate, I thought the President really didn't answer. Why would Mitt Romney ask the President of the United States about 401ks or investments in China? I think the President gave a smart answer but I was really looking for a denial.

That is the big question here. Who is serving whom in the U.S. Government? Everybody seems to be connected to Wall Street or had some ties. I don't know if the Republican Party owns Wall Street or Wall Street owns them? Wall Street don't like Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. They never have liked those Government runned programs. They have their tentacles in both parties. Obama appointed a lot of advisers have ties to Wall Street. Especially some associated with Goldman sachs.

Boehner and Ryan also has some connections to the same people. The people on the Right and left truly believe in their issues. There is no such thing as this mythical middle the Blue dogs talk about. Their constituents are Big money and corporations. I consider most of them vulture capitalists. They are playing both the Right and Left against each other. The only tax reforms they want are reforms that benefit them. They are making enormous profits yet they still complain about corporate tax rates. And the only revenues going towards research, are investments that enrich them. anything that will enrich them and give them more profits, they are for. Putting a fella like Erskine Bowles or his cohort Simpson in charge of a commission on the Debt, is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. CPI was their recommendation and also raising the age of limit. And the fear factor they used was the retirement of baby boomers. Judging how long Baby boomers will live is not an exact science. And even if they raise the age limits 20-35 years from now, it does nothing to the current Debt. They do not account for events that occur in 20-35 years.

There is plenty of money in the U.S. not being spent, but wasted. The wealthy are not putting back into this country, that gave them opportunities. If anybody are moochers and takers, it is in the top percent. The country will not suddenly die if they are replaced. Most of the ideas they profited off, probably came from ordinary Americans. They just own the rights to them. Anybody is expendable. They can move to any country they want, and I sincerely doubt they will be missed. There are many other bright Americans waiting to have the same opportunities they got in this country. The most important resource this country has are its people. And we can open our arms to people want to come here and give to this country.

[blkmusclmachine]

101. And yet, 2014 is gonna be an epic clusterf/ck for DEMS.

Nice going, O.

Bipartisanship sucks

[tridim]

106. Keep up the hope.

You already lost and you don't even know it yet.

[Bucky]

102. I'm not sure I buy this spin.

If Social Security comes out of this manufactured crisis ungutted, I'll tip my hat. Obama left far too many Dems flapping in the wind for this to be a purely partisan victory.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. If that's the strategy, then he is brilliant. And such reasoning can be applied elsewhere:

All he has to do is follow the Republicans and take credit for what they want.

Obama Called Their Bluff: Republicans Admit They Are Too Scared to Close Gitmo

Obama Called Their Bluff: Republicans Admit They Are Too Scared to Go After War Criminals

Obama Called Their Bluff: Republicans Admit They Are Too Scared to ...

[siligut]

109. Damned either way by some

Whine, whine and more whine. Bunch of drunks on dissatisfaction.

[GeorgeGist]

116. No so fast ...

Republicans embrace Obama’s offer to trim Social Security benefitshttp://www.democraticunderground.com/1014454861

[Iliyah]

122. UGH

Many GOPers are not liking Pres O's plan with SSI and Medicare, and truly hate the tax increases for the upper class alonwith closing loopholes. GOPers need seniors as a voting block and now with some of the leaders telling them to shut the eff up and suck it up is telling. Why very little about revenue huh? Y'thnk that the GOP party is gonna except them? Y'think the Democratic House and Senate is gonna except cuts to SSI and Medicare?

At least the conversation is on and hopefully a neutral plan can be enacted to help move the economy and save the Middle Class, huh? I doubt it tho concerning the party of "hell no".

[bowens43]

119. Wow, Talk about delusional..........

the Obama fundamentalists blow my mind. How can they be so blind?

[Indyfan53]

120. That better be what happened.

I'd hate to think he actually caved. We need to contact our Democrats in congress and make sure they actually vote NO on the CPI. Otherwise, they will face a huge backlash.

[grahamhgreen]

123. But, They Never Bluffed!

[Doctor_J]

126. Oops

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=454861

I guess they weren't as buffaloed by the 11D chess as some at DU

[4bucksagallon]

127. 126 replies and only 80 DUrec

Tells me there are still a lot of people that would be happier on Free Republic, I wish they would just go. This place is not any fun lately.
Maybe it's time to skip this place all together.

[yurbud]

128. except it isn't true. they've decided to take yes for an answer:

Republicans embrace Obama’s offer to trim Social Security benefits
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/republicans-embrace-obamas-offer-to-trim-social-security-benefits/2013/04/15/9de1c594-a448-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html?hpid=z4