Let's Get Down To Brass Tacks... WHY... Would Barack Obama, And Fellow Dems Support The...

[WillyT]

Grand Bargain... and its attendet "Entitlement Cuts"?

Thoughts ???

[Scuba]

1. They want to undermine Democratic candidates in the 2014 elections?

[Enthusiast]

61. I have wondered the same thing.

Because that is what Chained CPI would do.

[Fumesucker]

2. They don't feel entitled?

[WillyT]

5. Oh... C'Mon... THEY Are The MOST Entitled...

If you're talking about TPTB...

[NuclearDem]

3. Democrats never seem to have the capacity to press an advantage?

[silverweb]

4. Maybe they don't support it.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Maybe they just purposely let slip that they might have to consider it.

Maybe they're counting on all of us to stir up a shit storm of backlash and protest so that everyone has to back away from the idea, Dems and reTHUGs alike.

[daleanime]

53. Once might be a plan....

but when its done over and over again I have to think we're not part of the plan.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Damned if I know, my dear WillyT!

I just don't get it either.

[WillyT]

9. My Dear Peg...

[Silent3]

7. If I were to indulge in very wishful thinking, I'd say...

...to get at least some of what we need now, then run Democrats on reversing the compromises we had to make to get Republican votes in Congress.

The harm of chained CPI, for instance, is very, very minimal in the short term of a few years. If you can get something in exchange for chained CPI now, then repeal it before it causes significant harm, that might be a good strategic move.

But I certainly don't blame anyone for not trusting in anything so hopeful. I don't.

[sabrina 1]

30. Nonsense. I have seen this talking point about 'reversing' legislation that

cheats the American People 'just to get what we want now' a number of times over the past week and it is NONSENSE.

SS has zero to do with the Deficit and every single Democrat worth the title better start being truthful about that, because we KNOW what is going on and no amount of Talking Points, and nonsensical 'Theories' is going to change that.

I remember the Welfare Reform Bill that was supposed be 'fixed' also. That was 20 years ago and so far, that disastrous piece of legislation (thanks President Clinton) continues to destroy the lives of so many mothers and children.

'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'.

Just please stop. We intend to be united on this.

Hands off SS. It has zero to with the Deficit and no amount of lies and/or deceptions is going to force anyone into believing that lie.

Now it's time to join the numerous Liberal Organizations who are joining with the Unions, to put an end to this nonsense.

[Silent3]

34. Did you see the words "if I were to indulge in VERY WISHFUL THINKING"?

Was that too subtle for you?

[Enthusiast]

62. The Democrats won't get a thing

for Chained CPI that is of actually value.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Here's a new question: Why would a Democratic Underground member even ask this question....

....absent some refutable links, or sources, or some damned thing.

It's an honest question, WillyT.

What the hell prompts the question?

[WillyT]

11. Really... REALLY !!!

The "Chained CPI" is in his goddamned budget proposal!

And then... there is the opening Democratic gambit as soon as we win the GovShutDebtCliff...

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023889405

[NYC_SKP]

12. Excellent, then please include it in the OP!

Dude.

Have you ever seen an OP that reads, "Can you believe what they just said right there???"

And there's not even a mention of cable news network, show, time zone, or whatever?

Context!

TIA,

[jberryhill]

15. Did you see that post this morning?

Ugh. That person always posts those.

[Marr]

78. You demanded links and info you could refute. You got them. Now you're ignoring them.

Why not address the questions posed by WillyT there regarding the Chained CPI offer?

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Uh-oh, Willy--You just ran afoul of the Denial Machine.

Don't let it BOG you down, though. They were on my case for pretty much the same offense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023901264

[NYC_SKP]

17. You know, it's a courtesy to provide context. People are busy, people are working....

...people aren't always on the Internet or cable with access to the things in the AM that might prompt a post in the PM.

What is so offputting about asking for a little responsible posting and providing context?
-
:shrug;

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Sorry...gotta go with what Skip said.

Willy knows we don't have much in disagreement
but I too am tired of clicking on posts to find a single statement, no links
and left wondering what the heck is the point.

[WillyT]

28. I Dunno DG...

I posted this... which got almost 5,000 views: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023889405

Had over 200 responses and almost 90 Recs...

Which really does means not a whole bunch... yet makes one think that the group is in tune with the subject matter...

I may have assumed... and I apologize for the "me" in that...



Yet I've also gotten grief for assuming people HAD NOT seen the subject we were haggling about.

Like I said... I dunno... I'm just a simple poster.

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. I read your posts cause I know it will be something I am interested in

and timely.
Since i have no tv or radio, I do sometimes miss the references to things a lot of people know about, tho.
tossing in a word or 2 for reference is helpful.
Same thing with videos..I tend not not bother anymore if I can't tell what they are about from the post.

[Jackpine Radical]

73. Here's the "missing link."

Actually, I have about the same reaction as you do to videos (amplified by the fact that my "broadband" is often pretty narrow), and am equally tuned-out from TV and most mass media, so I understand and sympathize with your comments. I guess I thought I was doing a service by not repeating something I had already posted. My point was that I got the same sort of denial-responses that showed up here.

The "entitlements" betrayal proceeds apace…

From a Progressive Change Campaign Committee email (stripped of its numerous contribution requests)

Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Mark Warner said: "We all know at the end of the day...Democrats are going to have to give on entitlement reform."

This is coming from one of the Democrats picked to negotiate with Paul Ryan and hash out a budget.

We need to pressure Sen. Warner and other Democrats on their home turf to stop pushing for a Grand Bargain that cuts Social Security.

Some of the Democrats picked are great -- like Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Others like Warner, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) have not closed the door on benefit cuts and need to hear loudly from their constituents these next several weeks.


Some groups won't name names. We just did because, with Social Security at stake, progressives need to pressure the right people.

Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-- Adam Green, PCCC co-founder

[sabrina 1]

31. Another honest question. Are you saying that the President has not included

the Chained CPI in his Budget? I definitely can supply links to back that up but I was under the impression that everyone knows this.

What the hell makes a Dem President do something like this? SS had zero to do with the Deficit. So why would a Dem President cave to the TP and the Far Right by pretending it did?

If you need links to back up the inclusion by this President, of the Chained CPI in his budget, I will happy to provide them.

[Sheepshank]

72. you seem to do this a lot

Are you saying that the President has not included the Chained CPI in his Budget?

You try and create a situation, verbaslize a statment that never existed in a post, and to back people into a corner.

I wonder why?

[sabrina 1]

88. I asked a question. I wonder why that would bother anyone ...

[Sheepshank]

92. you made up stuff, and then tried to use it as a bludgeon

it was not a simple question...and it's a repeated MO

[sabrina 1]

96. I received a civil response to my

question from NYC_SKP, to whom it was addressed.

These personal attacks are destroying the conversation here so I will leave you to your own MO.

I prefer the response I received from NYC_SKP which was rational and practical and something most of us could agree with. An example of how to answer a question rather than knee jerk react with theories about what is in someone's mind.

[NYC_SKP]

83. We need to fight.

My issue is more about form and presentation.

It's a lost cause, but I still just wish people would put together better OPs when they want to express their concern.

This OP would have benefited greatly from a quality link, and not a Huffington Post link, as is the favorite of this particular member.

Otherwise, I'm with you.

[sabrina 1]

90. I can agree that presentation if important.

[PeteSelman]

10. You know why.

The same reason they'll push the TPP on us. The same reason they did NAFTA and abandoned labor.

[scheming daemons]

14. In exchange for tax increases on the wealthy... That's about all they'd do it for

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Well Geez then, why not ask for both?........

No GB on entitlements AND tax increases on the wealthy. And lest anybody think that's unfair, this IS supposed to be a democracy and BOTH of those ideas are supported by a majority of people. So why not demand BOTH.

[sabrina 1]

32. What right do they have to trade the already menial amount of money

that Seniors and orphaned children and the disabled rely on for tax increases to the wealthy?

JUST RAISE THEIR TAXES and let them squeal for crying out loud. I am sick to death of the weakness of our party. Although I'm beginning to wonder, is it really weakness, because it makes no sense to try to tie SS to the mess made by Bush.

No to SS cuts. RAISE SS BENEFITS. That money belongs to the those who paid into it! The FED GOV has zero right to gamble with it.

HANDS OFF SS!

[CrispyQ]

74. "I'm beginning to wonder, is it really weakness..."

A lot of us are wondering that, too.

I think the dems have been weak since they backed away from the word liberal. Then they climbed on the corporate gravy train & backed away from liberal policies, as well. They've gotten more cowardly as they've become more entrenched on the gravy train. If Obama had shown the spine he's shown the past month, during his first six months in office, we might have seen some real change.

I applaud the president for reaching across the aisle & trying to work with them, but you do it two, maybe three times, & then you say fuck it. You don't continue for four fucking years! He should have played hardball with these fuckers long, long ago.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Given the history, it would be natural to wonder why he is doing this now? What's the catch?

I suspect that he is building support in DC for the approval of the TPP. That's going to do us all in, but not for those in DC who approve of it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Well, since actions speak louder than words

I long ago gave up trying to figure out WHY someone is abusing me,
but chose to recognize that they ARE doing harm to me.

Why????? keeps us stuck in the problem.
truly, it does.

The real question is WHAT do we need to do about it?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. I think it's because they hate old people. Yeah, that's it.

They really really hate old people or anyone on social security--especially those TAKERS who actually rely on it. There can be no doubt that Obama is in an 8 year long con. We're supposed to believe he's a progressive, but then he's going to sign into law a number of bills that cut social security benefits for all, raise social security eligibility to 75, put lifetime caps on Medicare payouts for patients, start ground wars with at least 2 sovereign nations, and complete plans to drill in ANWAR and have the oil pumpede through pipelines criss-crossing the U.S.'s most environmentally sensitive areas.

He's just a bad, bad, bad man.

[WillyT]

21. So... You'd Be OK With A New Rule Starting With 55 Year Olds... 45 Year Olds ???

Which generation do YOU prefer to get screwed ???

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. you just asked why they would screw with SS. I just answered.

in the end, never believe in anyone. do not believe in the system. build an underground fortress, and stock up on dry goods. Corporate overlords are about ready to build Elysium and turn the earth into one giant Prole colony.

[WillyT]

24. Finally... I Understand You...

[sabrina 1]

36. How about something more simple. Like HONESTY eg.

Here's some honesty and some facts for you.

The SS Fund does not belong to the Fed Govt so they have ZERO RIGHT to try to use it bargain with.

The SS Fund had ZERO to do with the DEFICIT, so it does not belong in these discussions, period.

Any politician who attempts to drag the SS fund into these discusssions, any politician who pretends that SS had anything to do with the Deficit, can kiss his job goodbye as multiple Liberal Orgs together with the Unions and untold numbers of Civil Rights and Human Rights Orgs formed a Coalition BEFORE the last election, to end the games being played with the SS Fund and to ensure that politicians who participate in those games, lose their jobs.

SS is NOT part of the Fed Budget and needs to be instantly removed from any discussions about it. EVERYONE knows this by now, well everyone who has a brain cell functioning.

[Marr]

79. You didn't answer, you posted a bit of childish snark. /nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

81. I did answer. The entire premise is bogus

And not serious and I am treating it as such.

[Marr]

95. Your assertion then is that the offer did not actually happen?

I don't understand. You're dismissing an uncontested fact as bogus?

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Not to pick nits,

but the term is ANWR -- Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. lol. thanks! it's been a couple of years or so since it's been in daily talking points

so I forgot.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. He/They wouldn't ...

It worked the last two times and it’ll work this time, too.

Fear not … CCPI is going nowhere except to further damage the republican party. But what putting CCPI "on the table" does is put republicans in a pickle with the cohort of independents and fed up republicans that we (Democrats) need to, either: 1) vote Democratic (not likely), or 2) vote republican 3rd party, or stay home in 2014.

Here let me spell it out for you one more, again …

Why it hurts republicans …

Republicans demand movement on “entitlements” … President Obama places on the table CCPI … the left freaks out (showing that President Obama is acting against his base, i.e., willing to compromise) … But the offer comes with a demand for more revenue (something that the left ignores during their freak out) … republicans are caught in a pickle; if they accept the CCPI along with the increased revenue, they face a primary challenge because they caved on tax increases AND they are hurt with a significant portion of their mid-term base - the elderly. If they vote against the CCPI, they face a primary because they didn’t cut “entitlements” AND they are hurt with those fed-up republicans and independents that want to see governance, if not compromise, by once again proving the “obstructionist” label, true. The republicans have, once again, refused to take what they asked for.

Now, why it won’t hurt Democrats …

Listen to what sitting Democratic legislators are actually saying about CCPI … Those in safe districts are saying “CCPI? Hell no!” Those in purplish districts and the Democratic leadership are saying, “CCPI? Well, we’ll think about it (against my base’s wishes); but only if the republicans will give in on significant revenue.” Republicans will not do the level of revenue required for CCPI to be put to a vote in the House or the Senate, nor will they do sufficient revenue for President Obama to sign the thing into law.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

27. very well put!

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Frankly ...

I'm getting tired of explaining strategy to folks. No one refutes it, they just repeat the same "But he put it on the table" stuff.

To add a little more ...

Everyone seems to think that a critical mass of the american public just magically came to the conclusion that the modern gop is obstructionist; but this has been in the making since early 2011, when it became apparent that the modern gop meant what they said when they would obstruct any and everything that President Obama attempted.

In the beginning of the modern gop's No Campaign, the american public was split as to the cause of the gridlock in Washington.

From that point on, President Obama has put exactly what the modern gop has asked for on the table (using their terminology), along with framing his ask as vague, but reasonable (e.g., revenue enhancements) ... each time the left freaked out for his "caving"; but the modern gop said "No."

Each time this played out, the american public took notice ... President Obama is willing to suffer the slings and arrows of his base, in an attempt to govern; but no matter what he offers, the modern gop says "No." And each time, the modern gop approval/favorability numbers went down among the target cohort; while his approval/favorability numbers held steady, but his "willing to compromise" numbers rose.

This culminated with the shut-down ... had President Obama not "caved"/appeared willing to compromise, the shut-down would have been on him and 2014 would be at further risk.

[Laelth]

58. I certainly appreciate your strategic insights.

Please, keep it up. I do understand your frustration, but a lot of people who do not comment read what you have to say.



-Laelth

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. And I suspect that ...

there are plenty that can't read what I have written because of the ignore feature.

And another group that read it and have no comeback; but wish to remain worried, so they choose to ignore it.

But that's probably just my ego talking.

[Laelth]

69. I still hope you continue to give us your insights.

If the party stalwarts on DU can maintain the necessary composure to avoid hippie-hating and liberal-bashing, their voices can be heard. Those of us on the left want to believe that the national party is working for the best interests of all Americans. It wouldn't take much to convince me of that, personally, but it helps a lot to know what strategy is underlying the political moves of the party's insiders and power brokers.



-Laelth

[joshcryer]

37. The CBPP said CCPI *must* come with a poverty exception.

Without it it fails.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3690

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3957

The tax loophole thing was thrown in their last time because Obama really had no intention of getting something passed, but as long as there is a poverty exception it will never pass.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. I don't know ...

the deal died, not because of the poverty exception; but because of the tax/revenue enhancement thing.

[joshcryer]

40. Yup.

But the poverty exception is just another thing to sour it.

And I don't see the Democrats voting for a CCPI without it.

So basically, "CCPI is better than raising the retirement age but worse than raising the cap" is the best answer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. I doubt Democrats ...

will do CCPI without a poverty exemption AND exemptions for the disabled, veterans, and other non-wealthy folks (you pick the wealthy number?) AND significant revenue.

[PragmaticLiberal]

43. Fwiw, I've always believed this to be case as well.

But with that being said, I still think it's dangerous to put it out there.

Ya never know, the opposition may actually bite.


I doubt it....but it is risky.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. The can bite ...

but they'll never swallow, as Democrats (and as quiet as it's kept, the non-modern gop republicans) won't let them. I'm starting to think the only ones taking this seriously are the deluded on the right and the perpetually worried of the left.

[JoePhilly]

63. You'd think after 10 or 15 times they'd get this.

Every couple months for almost 5 years now, DU explodes in panic over the impending death of Social Security.

"Its going to happen any second!!!!"

DU members flip out screaming. Same folks who were SURE it was definitely about to happen before, are absolutely sure again.

And then ... POOF ... nothing happens.

And then ... the cycle repeats. They freak out all over again.

Also ... the other thing to add in your why it doesn't hurt Democrats is that President Obama, by appearing to be willing to "consider" such cuts, looks reasonable. Of course you never hear the President come out before the American people and call for cuts. He's daring the GOP to do it. He can say he's willing to consider "reforms", "modifications", so on, (that's being reasonable) but he's not going to call for cuts or try to sell that idea to the American people. He's going to dare the GOP to do that, and then hammer them. Chained CPI is a piece of cheese sitting in the middle of a rat trap. And he's daring the rats in the GOP to try and take it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. But on a positive note ...

I think the "left's freak-out" is part of the calculus ...

[JoePhilly]

70. Agree. And ...

I would not be surprised at all to learn (someday down the road) that the President, Bernie, Reid and all the other "main players" know, and have agreed, on their roles.

[CrispyQ]

84. It's disingenuous to even talk about SS in regards to the deficit.

And now we have Dick Durbin speaking the right wing lie that SS is going broke. If this is a strategy, I think it's a really bad one.

There are enough low info voters without dems contributing to the misinformation about SS. When the prez puts CCPI on the table, he is essentially sending the message that SS contributes to the deficit. It doesn't. The dems need to stop with this bullshit.

[joshcryer]

33. Chained-CPI would come with a poverty exception.

Which would bring millions of seniors out of poverty. It would be a cut for the rest who aren't in poverty (over time), but those in poverty would be helped.

It's basic centrist redistributive policy (it's not progressive because it hurts people in the long run and merely kicks the can down the road).

So there you have it, they would support it if it came with a mechanism to bring people out of poverty. Is it worth it? Maybe. Maybe not. I suppose those 4-5 million seniors in poverty shouldn't be addressed. I did have one poster here tell me that would make Social Security a welfare program as opposed to an entitlement program. I don't know.

I support raising the cap because it's like 4 lines of legislation.

[liberal_at_heart]

38. because we live in a an oligarchy.

[customerserviceguy]

41. Because they know

that Social Security and Medicare are running out of money, and the sooner we do something, the less painful it's ultimately going to be?

If we stick our heads in the sand, another half dozen years of baby boomer retirements are going to dry up the little bit of slack we've still got left in both systems. Better to make adjustments now while we own the Senate and the Presidency than to let the Rethugs do it when they get government back someday. Oh, they'll be out of the White House for two more Hillary terms, but I have a feeling that they might just get the Senate back before she hangs it up in 2025.

[WillyT]

42. Why Not Raise The Cap ???

Or cut Defense ???

[joshcryer]

47. The Republicans would push it as a tax hike.

And it would be a tax hike, particularly on the upper middle class. That's where the donut hole idea comes in at.

[WillyT]

49. If There Is A Not Better Time... To Promote Taxing The Rich... I Don't Know What Would Be...

[joshcryer]

50. I agree. It only affects the top 5.2%

Just be prepared to make the arguments and fight for the Representatives. Because the top 5% own this country.

[customerserviceguy]

59. That's part of the solution

I'd favor a comprehensive reform dealing with all aspects of the problems that the entitlement programs face, rather than just tacking chained CPI onto a cobbled-together bill designed to get us a few months down the road to the next crisis.

Such reform would involve subjecting more income to FICA and Medicare taxes, including adding forms of income that are really "pay" but are not taxed by those two levies. I can see the rate going up by up to a percentage point, and possibly some phase-in of a later retirement age. We did this in 1983 to keep Social Security solvent, we will have to do it again.

I'm all for cutting wasteful defense spending, but we have just as many Democratic congresscritters addicted to Pentagon pork for their districts as we do Republicons, so that's not going to happen outside of the sequester.

[liberal_at_heart]

44. If we want to save SS and Medicare we shouldn't be cutting funding. We should be increasing funding

to them. Just as we should be increasing funding for education, transportation, health care, Medicaid, food stamps, minimum wage, and many, many other things. We've been cutting our public services since Reagan was president. No more cuts to our public services.

[customerserviceguy]

60. And where's that money coming from under present law?

See my response above, we do need to shore them up financially, but the only reasonable way is to do so as part of a comprehensive reform like we did thirty years ago.

[CrispyQ]

85. SS is not running out of money.

If SS is in such dire straights, then the federal govt should pay back what they've borrowed from it. Point is, they don't want to!

Social Security -- the most fiscally responsible program

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

snip...

Social Security is self-financed, cannot borrow, spends less than one percent on its administrative costs, has a $2.6 trillion surplus which will continue to grow for a number of years, and is off-budget. It does not contribute to the federal deficit or the debt. The Social Security surplus is invested in US Treasuries which enables the federal government to borrow less from other sources. The government borrows these Social Security funds to pay for other government spending -- but is obligated to pay interest on these borrowings -- and pay back the borrowed funds in full when they are needed by Social Security for benefit payments.

more...

Pay Back Social Security -- The Government Has Borrowed More from Social Security than any Other Entity or Foreign Government

According to the U.S. Treasury Department's "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" (9.30.10), the total debt was $13.562 trillion and was held as follows:

US Holders of Debt
42.1 % -- US Individuals and Institutions
17.9 % -- Social Security Trust Fund
6.0 % -- US Civil Service Retirement Fund
2.1 % -- US Military Retirement Fund

Foreign Holders of Debt
11.7 % -- Oil Exporting Countries
9.5 % -- China and Hong Kong
6.3 % -- Japan
1.4 % -- United Kingdom
1.3 % -- Brazil
1.6 % -- All other foreign countries

[customerserviceguy]

100. Ever since the Great Recession started

More money has been going out of the system every year than has been coming in. With ever-increasing waves of baby boomers hitting the system every year until mid-2023 (when the peak turns 66 1/2 years old, the "full benefit" retirement age) I don't possibly see a reversal of that fact for the next decade. Even then, the ebb of the baby boom will continue to belly up to the bar for their benefits until 2034. And most of the boomers will still be alive for at least a few years after that.

As for "pay back what they've borrowed from it", that sounds good on paper, but where is that money coming from? Budget surpluses, swapping out Social Security's specialized Treasury securities for fully negotiable T-bonds and bills, or inflating the currency? It has to be one or more of the above, there's no other place to find the money. Which one of those alternatives is the most politically feasible?

If we do nothing, then options two and three become the default. Both are inflationary, and with COLA's, the nation goes on a financial death spiral. Yes, I'd love to see the military budget cut, and taxes on the rich raised, but what's the chances of that happening anytime soon?

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Because they believe they can survive the results better than Republicans who let taxes rise

And then do right by Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security when they hold power again.

[colsohlibgal]

51. Not All Democrats Support this

Nor do some of them support the Corporate all in one power grab that is the dreadful TPP. Those democrats + Bernie Sanders are the real liberal/progressive wing of the party - real democrats. Obama for the most part is in the neo liberal wing which is too bad.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Obama: self-infatuation. The rest: triangulation.

Obama wants to show himself that he's so amazing that he can even touch the third rail of politics and live. He likes himself A LOT. Ever notice that he only fights back when something hurts *him*? Otherwise, he preemptively caves.

For the rest... Same ole triangulation as always.

[JoePhilly]

64. This is it, here it comes .... any second!!!!

I'm curious ... is this a prediction???

Ever notice that he only fights back when something hurts *him*? Otherwise, he preemptively caves.

I mean, the OP topic is cuts to Social Security. And in the line I quote above, you are claiming that President Obama will preemptively cave.

And so would that not mean that you are in fact predicting that this time, since it doesn't hurt President Obama, he's going to preemptively cave, and cut Social Security?

Sounds like a prediction to me.

[MisterP]

54. why'd he give us HeritageCare? why'd he drone? he knows there's enough people to cover for him

and angrily attack any opposition to the policy as being 100% RW

[Recursion]

55. Because the entitlement cuts are means-tested, and it raises taxes

Basically, that's the short answer. The chained CPI won't apply to recipients under a certain level of income (at least under what Obama has floated), so it's means tested. At the same time, a chained CPI raises taxes, which is something we want.

[JDPriestly]

56. Obama? Because he really doesn't care about seniors.

He has never cared about seniors -- at least the policies he supports are never favorable to seniors.

[YoungDemCA]

57. Answer: Wall Street $$$$

Securities and Investment:

2008:
Democrats: $44,362,556
Republicans: $33,924,39

2012:
Democrats: $29,000,459
Republicans: $69,769,785

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/

In 2008, Wall Street supported the Democrats more than the Republicans. In 2012, the opposite occurred.

The President is hoping to reverse this trend. But support from Wall Street, like anything, comes with strings attached....

[99Forever]

65. Even the BOG regulars...

... know the real answer. They just aren't ever going to admit it.

If Barack Obama cuts SS, no matter how they try to spin it, the Democratic Party WILL pay a huge price for doing so.

[spanone]

68. when they do, i'll give you my thoughts.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. Duopoly good cop bad cop bullshit.

They scare us with teabaggery and then stick us with entitlement cuts.

[avaistheone1]

94. +10

[geek tragedy]

75. Presumably, because they were able to extract worthy concessions

from the Republicans in exchange.

Would I trade chained CPI for increased defense spending? Of course not.

Would I trade chained CPI for Medicare for all/single payer? Absolutely.

[Southside]

82. Took the words out of my mouth

There has to be give and take when working towards progress.

I trust Pelosi, Reid and a President Obama to make the best deal for the left. They show a healthy mix of pushing ideology and pragmatism. Just leave everyone already over 60 alone. Give them all the support we can. The rest of us can fight over the scraps left over.

[CrispyQ]

87. Why even make this trade if SS doesn't contribute to the deficit or debt?

It's bullshit. It's total fucking bullshit that SS is even mentioned in debt talks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

[geek tragedy]

89. Same reason one would trade a pitcher for a 3d baseman.

If the deal were to make the country better off, do it.

That said, it would take one hell of a concession from the Republicans to warrant a structural change in SS, even something supposedly as minor as chained CPI.

[CrispyQ]

97. I don't buy that.

Cutting senior benefits is not good for the country. Also, the dems have not been masterful negotiators. I think your 'one hell of a concession' will not be much at all.

[geek tragedy]

98. If it's not much of a concession, then you don't do the deal.

Of course cutting benefits is a bad policy, which is why you'd never do it on its own merits.

[fredamae]

77. Whether "we" want to admit it

or not-the NeoLibs are part of the problem-they're also in the 1%'rs Club, Also rife with greed and service to their corporate masters...Peterson, Simpson-Fix The Debt" group that Dem and former PA Gov Ed Rendell sits on---etc and imo.
These Dems NEVER include as part of the Solution--Lifting the Cap, allowing for Prescription Drug Prices etc as a Fix...they agree with the GOP and focus only on Cuts, Cuts, Cuts.
In addition-It is These Same Dems who INSIST upon Continuing to use the GOP's Negative implications within the term "Entitlements" instead of insisting these are Our Funds/Our Earned Benefits!

There definitely Is a Corporate/Business Wing of the Dem Party that is every bit as bad as the Corp Wing of the GOP and we need to identify the differences within the Dem Party.
That's why is it So Dangerous to simply "Vote a Straight Dem Ticket" for the sake of voting for a Dem. We too are guilty of not vetting. We too are guilty of voting against our own best interests - and they're All happy that we do.

[taught_me_patience]

80. Maybe there are those that believe there are problems

with some of the entitlement programs that, with a few tweaks, could be solved relatively painlessly now instead of waiting for a larger problem down the road. The Democratic party is a large tent and there are many pragmatic dems out there.

[sabrina 1]

91. Cutting benefits is not the way to ensure that the SS continues to

be solvent. That is not being pragmatic, it is being wrong.

The easiest way to ensure the continued success of the SS program is to eliminate the cap.

Keep jobs here in the US instead of providing incentives to outsource them. Eg, end subsidies and tax breaks for Corporations that choose to take their business overseas. Unless they adhere to the same Labor Laws they are deliberately trying to escape from which allows them to abuse workers elsewhere.

End the obscene funding for all of our foreign wars. That, plus the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, is what caused the deficit and the borrowing from the SS Fund.

The SS Fund has enough surplus to keep it going for decades. It is not the Fund that needs 'fixing'.

It is the borrowing from the Fund that is the problem.

If they want to 'fix' the 'problem', they would be addressing the problem, not talking about cuts to a fund that has plenty of money in it to even RAISE benefits.

That is how we know that this is not intended to fix anything, it is intended to keep money in the fund for future borrowing.

[customerserviceguy]

102. Good to see you, I knew you'd be here

It's going to take a whole package of tweaks to fix the Social Security and Medicare systems, not just removing a cap or chained CPI. It's going to take tax rate increases, taxing more compensation that is currently exempt from FICA and Medicare tax, and a shift upwards of the full-benefit retirement age, especially for those who can handle it.

How many times do I have to tell you, there is no "Fund", it is just a bunch of accounting entries on a ledger making weak promises to pay back money that was never borrowed in the normal sense of the word, just created as a number fiction to make a budget a little less unbalanced than it otherwise is. The specialized securities that Social Security holds are just as non-negotiable (that means 'can't be sold or traded', not firm and unmoving) as the billion dollar check I could mail to you from my book of checks, but demand that you don't cash until I tell you it's OK.

Everybody in Congress knows the day of reckoning is coming, some choose to shape it while they're still able to, others will lie about it's existence, and hope that the you-know-what doesn't hit the fan until they're either dead or out of office, at least.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. You are either independently wealthy or have no clue as to

what life would be like for you living on the miserable SS stipend. Demanding cuts in an already insufficient program INSTEAD of demanding that the 0.01% actually pay their fair share of taxes is just fucking evil.

This is all about not having to make good on the FICA surplus, as the only way to make good on that is to raise income taxes and capital gains taxes on the uber-rich back to what they were before St. Reagan's Disaster.

[customerserviceguy]

101. Exactly

There are steps that could have been taken during the Clinton administration that would have really smoothed out the road for us some fifteen years or so later. The longer we wait, the more drastic the action has to be. Ultimately, Social Security will only be able to pay out a fraction of the promised benefits, and Medicare will have to cut back on payments so much that doctors will refuse to take on Medicare patients.

[CrispyQ]

86. Because they've borrowed the money & don't want to pay it back. -nt

[woo me with science]

93. Noam Chomsky:

[Demo_Chris]

103. Exactly. nt