Obama destroyed Chained CPI and I don't understand why we're not celebrating

[caseymoz]

39. Sorry, frequently things are exactly what they appear to be.

Do you disagree with that? You don't have one scrap of evidence for what you say, not one White House memo that says, "Hey, let's pull the wool over Repubs eyes," not one indication from President Obama that his proposal was meant with any ambiguity.

So, you're asking us to believe you against the best evidence, and way you're doing it is with an impassioned plea and a check of the outcome. The former isn't substantial, the latter is like saying the US losing Vietnam was part of our clever strategy in winning the Cold War. The fallacy is called "After this, therefore because of this." Chronology and outcome do not indicate causation.

So, he "destroyed" Chained CPI?

Chained CPI was already utterly "destroyed" when Obama picked it up. The only people championing it then were Obama supporters like yourself who were telling us how it wasn't that bad, that it would magically save money without really hurting anybody, and the neediest would be protected (skipping the fact that it make more people into "the neediest&quot , and that Repubs would be fools for going for it. This is what I read on this board.

Repubs never to my knowledge mentioned Chained CPI. They would never come out for something so complex. No, they know how to keep their ideas simple and stupid. Their base would never rally around it.

No, Repubs have come out with raising the eligibility age, and their pundits have said this, if not the politicians. They have also said they want it privatized, which they have, and even their politicians have said that.

So, why didn't Obama come out with either of those two things to kill those prospects? They seem a much more plausible threat than Chained CPI.

If you're at all correct-- and that's unlikely-- all I could say is, Obama the Great certainly didn't count on the fact that he would demoralize his base. Great psychology. How is it the great 5D chess player doesn't consider that? How is it he doesn't consider what this does to the Democrats in the 2014 election, just as he didn't consider it in the 2010 elections?

Also, if he used this deceptive tactic on Repubs, it should be permissible to presume that he used it on his own constituency. Did he promised the most transparent US government in history to "kill" the idea? Did he promised to close Gitmo to kill that idea as well? If he's the master manipulator, why is it such a jump to presume he's manipulating us? It would be even easier for him because we (once) trusted him more than the Repubs ever did.

So, who would he be more likely to bluff, beguile, fool or deceive? How do you know it's the Repubs playing chess against him and not us?

That's the problem with deception. Collateral damage. Don't blame us, Obama's Party, for taking exactly what he says and does for what it appears to be. It's up to Obama to clean it up now. If he didn't consider our opinions might become a problem, maybe killing what didn't need to be killed wasn't too good an idea to begin with.

If that's what happened. I tend to think what we saw with Chained CPI was the "real" Obama showing what he thought of Social Security, and of his base.

Because if it wasn't, then he made a terminally stupid move.