Lindsey Graham says Obama came close to cutting a "mini Simpson-Bowles deal" on Social Security

[ND-Dem]

Starts at the very end: ~1:04:30

https://soundcloud.com/dave-weigel-1/lindsey-graham-in-concord-nh

"Obama & Boehnor were this close to a deal -- a mini Simpson-Bowles deal...and he backed out when the liberals, led by Bernie Sanders, (unintelligible to end)"

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Lindsey Graham is a lying piece of shit too

[ND-Dem]

5. he may well be. i report, you decide.

[Cha]

21. There's that.. and also.. Obama's budget rejects House Republicans' Social Security hostage-taking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6370371

[tularetom]

52. Indeed Lindsey Graham is a lying piece of shit

But Obama did offer to cut social security benefits in thee 2014 budget.

Forgot about the "Chained CPI"? Google it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Yay for 'liberals, led by Bernie Sanders'! nt

[msanthrope]

3. I miss Hannah Bell on threads like this. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

10. So you're claiming there was no such deal?

Or that it was not the Democratic Wing who scuttled it?

[msanthrope]

18. Manny, I know I'm being a bit inside baseball, and I think you also know

that I simply do not respond to the faux-Socratic method of questions posed with the opener "So."

[MannyGoldstein]

22. IOW, you're busted.

The random rules you invent when busted are quite funny.

[msanthrope]

24. Busted? You think professed belief in anything Lindsey Graham has to say

is not revealing?

Lindsey Graham? That's your go-to guy for anecdotes about the President?

I enjoyed your HRC/Benghazi/email thread. That was quite informative.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Got it. Your don't dispute that Obama made the deal,

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

you take umbrage at the OP's professed belief in Graham.

Since no such profession actually exists in the OP... are you psychic? Do you just know it in your gut?

[msanthrope]

28. A sack of shit Republican who called WH officials "scumbags" is your source?

This is who you take at face value? This is who you give credence to?

The Senator who conspired with Lara Logan on her failed Benghazi report?

http://gawker.com/benghazi-truther-lindsey-graham-tied-to-botched-60-minu-1571850007

I am stunned that after that fiasco, any liberal or progressive would take Lindsey Graham seriously, and use him as a source for anything. That you would find him believable on any issue suggests to me a lack of discernment.

How many times does the man have to lie for you to stop believing him? Wasn't the Benghazi report enough?

Or do you believe him on Benghazi?

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Did I say Graham was my source?

Where? Please be specific, thanks.

[msanthrope]

30. He's the source of the OP, Manny, and you want to discuss his remarks.

Which is the point of the thread...or are you changing the point of the thread?

Now.....did you find him credible on Benghazi?

[MannyGoldstein]

33. No, I want to discuss your baseless attack on the OP.

The deal itself is well known.

[msanthrope]

36. Are the first two words of the OP not "Lindsey Graham?" nt

[MannyGoldstein]

37. That does not imply agreement in any way, and

isn't that one of those Socratic questions you find so rude?

[msanthrope]

47. When one quotes the right wing, offering them up without critique?

That does not imply agreement?

I do not think the site owners agree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293&sub=trans

[MannyGoldstein]

54. No.

Not at all.

[msanthrope]

56. Yes. You should believe it. nt

[Aerows]

59. Manny, sometimes you have to ask yourself

"Is this the hill I want to die on?" Lindsey Graham is a master of being a slimy politician that means nothing that comes out of his mouth and merely says it to provoke.

Pick your battles, my friend.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. I don't give a rat's ass about Graham

I am tired of posters being attacked for simply pointing things out.

I don't believe that the OP deserved to be abused.

[Aerows]

62. And you know what?

The OP shouldn't be abused. Nobody should be abused for their point of view on DU.

I think we should all dial it back.

Manny, DU would be lessened without you. I say that from the bottom of my heart, but all of this banning, time-outing and trying to silence each other is not the way.

I don't know what is the way. I'm just a member here, but I value your commentary.

[MannyGoldstein]

63. I have a pretty simple view on all this...

Personal attacks should be forbidden, everything else allowed unless a poster is clearly pushing for Republicans or has a pattern of being deceptive.

Ideas are ideas; adults can have discussions about them and disagree or persuade. Personal attacks are low stuff, they cause nothing but trouble, and that's what I tried to address in this thread.

I might be misreading it, but based on your post, you seem to feel that I'm in favor of or instigating banning, time-outing and silencing?

And back at you - I treasure your being part of the DU community!

[Aerows]

57. What in the hell are two good Democrats arguing about?

Lindsey Graham is an asshole, a snake and couldn't carry either of your boots, so just quit complaining.

"Lindsey Graham says something abjectly stupid." There is a surprise.

[msanthrope]

58. Precisely. ....and the idea that he should be taken at face value makes me puke. nt

[dawg]

4. I'm all for supporting team-Democrat, but people need to be aware ...

that there is a very real risk that our own politicians could sell us down the river on crucial issues like this.

A "minor" adjustment to future Social Security benefits sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you're someone who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. For the people who have to live on those benefits, though, it's a really big deal.

[Andy823]

6. Really, it's come to this?

Now we are supposed to believe the BS Lindsay Graham is spewing? Give me a break.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. If it fits their narative they'll believe it.

[Cha]

19. Really. For once in his ****** Lying life.. he's going to tell the truth. Uh huh.. 'course there

will be those who all of a sudden think Lindsey Benghazi Graham is honest as Abe Lincoln.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. This deal is well known, despite what the DU Revisionist History Team claims

in July 2011 e.g.,

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/obamas-long-battle-cut-social-security-benefits.html

However IIRC it was the Tea Party loons that killed the deal, not the "Liberals", as it wasn't horrendous enough for them.

The effort expended by a small group on DU to distort reality is pretty impressive.

[pa28]

9. Yep, his offers to cut SS were widely reported and actually included in the 2014 WH budget proposal.

Strange that some people still refuse to believe it.

[Rex]

12. Where would that be found in the report?

I am curious as to where it is in the report.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/budget.pdf

[pa28]

15. That would be on page 41 of the document you've linked to.

$230 Billion in ten year benefits cuts by changing the inflation calculation. Also known as the chained CPI.

[Oilwellian]

16. Page 12 (very last page)

WhiteHouse.gov

[ND-Dem]

17. Thanks for the verification. Found on p. 46:

In the interest of achieving a bipartisan deficit
reduction agreement, beginning in 2015 the Budget
would change the measure of inflation used
by the Federal Government for most programs
and for the Internal Revenue Code from the standard
Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the alternative,
more accurate chained CPI, which grows
slightly more slowly.

Unlike the standard CPI,
the chained CPI fully accounts for a consumer’s
ability to substitute between goods in response
to changes in relative prices and also adjusts for
small sample bias. Most economists agree that
the chained CPI provides a more accurate measure
of the average change in the cost of living
than the standard CPI.

Switching to the chained CPI, which will reduce
deficits and improve Social Security solvency, has
been proposed in almost every major bipartisan
deficit reduction plan put forward over the past
several years, including the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal
Commission plan, the Bipartisan “Gang of
Six” plan, and the Domenici-Rivlin Bipartisan
Policy Center plan.

The President has made clear that any such
change in approach should protect the most vulnerable.
For that reason, the Budget includes
protections for the very elderly and others who
rely on Social Security for long periods of time,
and only applies the change to non-means tested
benefit programs. The switch to chained CPI will
reduce deficits by at least $230 billion over the
next 10 years.


"Non-means tested" includes SS, which is given to everyone, poor or rich, who worked enough to qualify.

[Cha]

20. Obama's budget rejects House Republicans' Social Security hostage-taking

President Obama's budget does not include any Social Security "reforms" this time around. In fact, it includes an implicit challenge to Republicans who hope to manufacture a crisis in the program.

Obama's budget included the transfer of tax revenue from the program's retirement fund to the disability fund, which would otherwise start being unable to pay full benefits in late 2016. House Republicans passed a rule in January that would block the transfer—known as reallocation—unless Social Security's overall solvency was improved. […]
While Obama's budget acknowledges that reallocation can coincide with "a longer-term solution to overall Social Security solvency (being) developed with the Congress," its proposal is a clean reallocation with no strings attached. It also included a warning of sorts for any GOP proposals that would privatize or cut the program.

"Any reforms should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors, and should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits," the budget documents say. "The Administration will oppose any measures that privatize or weaken the Social Security system and will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations or reduces basic benefits for current beneficiaries."[/div]
MOre..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/02/1361807/-Obama-s-budget-rejects-House-Republicans-Social-Security-nbsp-hostage-taking#

[Doctor_J]

11. I don't know if the liberals will be able to hold Hillary back

A lot of her job will be to finish the giveaway that Obama started. Ss and public education will be the top priorities.

[NCTraveler]

23. Graham agrees. Hillary is so going after SS.

Graham is going to fight it tooth and nail.

[Bobbie Jo]

13. Wait

Lindsey Graham sez...?

You guys are scraping the very bottom of the barrel here.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Is it not basically true, though? nt

[Bobbie Jo]

35. Basically true?

Freaking hillarious.

I suppose you could say that Fox "News" peddles "basically true" as well.

Did you actually type that with a straight face, Manny?

[MannyGoldstein]

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

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

"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."

Is that hilarious enough for you, or would you like me to spend another moment googling for you?

[Bobbie Jo]

40. You're trying too hard here...

You can put up all of the old cherry-picking horseshit you want, Manny.

Bottom line, some of you folks are about as credible as "basically true" Faux News when it comes to spinning up the "truth" of any matter around here.

Please, go fetch some more old links that support your "basically true" stuff.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. So you claim that Rep. Conyers was lying?

Wow.

Just wow.

[Bobbie Jo]

42. So....

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant, Manny.

Brilliant.

Just brilliant.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. After Obama is out of office, progressives will post links about how they were almost right

The sad part is that those links will be to the National Review, Breitbart, and Lindsey Fucking Graham.

[Bobbie Jo]

48. "progressives"

Or some such...

Honestly, I'm sure what we're dealing with here.

This thread is freaking hillarious.

Lindsey sez...!11!

[MisterP]

14. why doesn't this win us votes? it's won us approval by oligarchs!

[spanone]

25. 'close' as in it didn't happen.

[fredamae]

31. Graham musta lost count

of his favorite string of pearls he likes to clutch during his "southern style" fainting spell(s) he frequently treats us to during times of immense GOP revelation as he rests upon his favorite velvet fainting couch........

[Doctor_J]

32. For those who think Graham is lying, can we accept these sources?

Obama’s Long Battle to Cut Social Security Benefits

The Nation - harry-reid-finally-settles-it-social-security-table#|Harry Reid Finally Settles It: Social Security Is Off the Table

Politico - Boehner rejects Obama cuts-revenue proposal

WaPo - Liberals didn’t kill Obama’s Social Security cuts. Republicans did.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Apparently not.

Reality is for sucker, it seems.

[Doctor_J]

50. The Nation is a well-known source for far right pro-corporate propaganda

That's why I have been a subscriber since 1990.

[grasswire]

53. crazy, crazy

The Nation. Far right. What's next?

[ND-Dem]

34. Apparently it did; multiple documentation in this thread.

[Sheepshank]

43. what were the specifics of this mini Simpson Bowles deal that actually didn't work out?

seems like this thread is long on alarmist rhetoric, and very low on actual details of this "mini" deal.

Negotiations are like that btw.....are we (DU) for ever doomed to rely on negotiations being the final act for all bill passages? It's getting pretty old all the screaming and tirades going on about something that never seems to eventuate.

[ND-Dem]

46. oh bull. 2014 is really that long ago?

Obama drops controversial Social Security proposal

The news was music to liberals' ears.

They have been scathing in their criticism of the idea, which would change the inflation formula used to determine cost-of-living increases in Social Security checks...

"'Chained CPI' is a fancy term for a boneheaded idea: ... In the wealthiest nation on earth, there is simply no excuse for more cuts that harm the most vulnerable among us. [We] thank the President for listening to the concerns of his constituents," MoveOn.org, the progressive activist group, said Thursday.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/20/news/economy/obama-social-security-chained-cpi/

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obama-2015-budget-chained-cpi-103732.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/18/news/economy/bowles-simpson-deficits/

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173843/why-obamas-chained-cpi-protections-arent-good-enough

[Sheepshank]

49. lovely linkys that still don't clarify what is meant by "mini Simpson Bowles"

the the bull comes from the linear thinking of what "negotiations" really means, and how it is conducted.

Again...much pearl clutching about something that apparently never happened...from your 2014 first link:

The left is cheering President Obama's decision to exclude a proposal to reduce cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security benefits in his upcoming budget, due out March 4.

I'm just so not interesting in the methods used in negotiations. The alarmist prognosticators here, just don't seem to understand how foolish they beginning to look.

Besides...here's some real meat from a link in your first article...why is there no focus on this? http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/20/pf/taxes/rich-taxes/index.html?iid=EL

Thanks to the fiscal cliff deal and the Affordable Care Act, the top 1% of taxpayers - and many in the top 3% as well - will have to pay a bigger tax bill come April 15.

Oh right...of course there is no discussion on this, it doesn't fit the alarmist rhetoric.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Horseshoes and hand grenades, Lindsey

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

51. Oh Lindsey, you funny little liar...stop making my sides hurt

[Aerows]

55. And now, flash flood watches

wasp nests in your area and Lindsay Graham says something abjectly stupid again, all at news 9!

[stevenleser]

61. It didn't quite happen that way...

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/20/news/economy/obama-social-security-chained-cpi/
February 20, 2014

Obama had included a chained CPI proposal in his budget last year. On Thursday, the White House said it would not be in his upcoming budget, due March 4.
.
.
.

On average, chained CPI is expected to grow 0.25% to 0.3% slower than the current CPI measure, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

But economists' argument didn't win over the liberals.
.
.
.

Though it won't be in the official budget proposal, chained CPI remains "on the table," according to a White House official, but only as part of a deal that asks the wealthy to sacrifice something as well.

--------------------------

and that last part is the key. Chained CPI was always on the table as an inducement to Republicans to come to the table and increase taxes on the wealthy. I disagree that it should have been on the table at all as I noted in my below appearance on Neil Cavuto's show.

But the administration put it out there to show they were serious about offering to compromise with Republicans to make a fair deal. Fair meaning both sides give up something they want. By doing this, the President showed that the Republicans wouldn't make a deal no matter what he offered.

The President backing out had nothing to do with "Sanders" or "Liberals" and everything to do with the Republicans being completely unwilling to compromise.

[woo me with science]

64. K&R