Breaking: Obama To Drop Social Security Cuts In His Budget

[ProSense]

Breaking: Obama To Drop Social Security Cuts In His Budget

President Barack Obama will drop Social Security cuts he supported last year in his upcoming budget proposal, White House sources told TPM.

The president's budget blueprint for the coming year will omit the so-called Chained CPI proposal, which slows the rate at which Social Security benefits grow (which were included in his budget plan last year).

"The compromise embedded in last year’s Budget included policies like chained CPI -- the number one policy change that Republicans had asked for in previous fiscal negotiations," said a White House official. "However, over the course of last year, Republicans consistently showed a lack of willingness to negotiate on a deficit reduction deal, refusing to identify even one unfair tax loophole they would be willing to close, despite the President’s willingness to put tough things on the table."

The decision is a result of the decreasing deficit, burgeoning focus on equality of opportunity and the fact that Republicans refused to return the favor when they had the change. Obama was also facing a rebellion among liberals who strongly oppose the idea. The president isn't definitively taking the idea off the table as part of a broad budget deal that includes tax revenues.

- more -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-to-drop-social-security-cuts-budget

[JaneyVee]

1. A President that is listening to his base?! Tyranny!

Now lets keep being vocal about KXL & trade agreements. Onward!

[rhett o rick]

5. That's a very interesting question. Those that I concider as "his base" were supporting his

position of cutting SS and trying to justify it. If you are asking if he listened to the left, I would have to say no. But we do still have to raise holy hell about the TPP, KXL, and friggin' fracking.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

74. Reminder "His Base" are called "Democrats"

And they were split on whether to enter into good-faith negotiations with the GOP or not.

The President decided to reach out to the GOP, as he promised to do in his campaign, but was flatly rejected.

Nothing of this has anything to do with the fever-dreams of green party fanatics.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[DonViejo]

78. Thank you! eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. +1 eom.

[rhett o rick]

140. Ah yes. Anyone that calls themselves a Democrat is just alright with you. That's the test.

Doesnt matter what their principles are. I can see how that would make life easier for some. But in my mind, there is no such thing as a "conservative Democrat". That's a conflict in terms. A "Conservative Democrat" is a Democrat In Name Only (DINO). I call conservative Democrats the Lieberman Wing of the Party. Or maybe the Zell Miller Wing. They agree with Republican principles just dont like the name.

[malokvale77]

181. Wish I could rec this. (nt)

[JJChambers]

146. Well done!

Social security needs to be enhanced, not cut. A comfortable retirement should be a reality for EVERY hard-working American.

[kelliekat44]

213. The President is smarter than all of us. I knew he was going to do this...master player. nt

[George II]

111. HOW is using the "chained CPI" a "cut"? Please explain that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. The same way ...

Not getting an anticipated pay raise, is a pay cut.

[cali]

122. bullshit. absolute bullshit.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/12/chained_cpi_a_sneaky_plan_to_cut_social_security_and_raise_taxes_by_changing.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/chained-cpi-explained-89679.html

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-02-2013/the-chained-consumer-price-index-explained.html

the bottom line is that it would eventually result in severe cuts.

[rhett o rick]

138. They think if "in their mind" they are convinced that it isnt a cut, then it isnt.

They dont give a good goddamn about our seniors.

[George II]

147. See my post below, #84, which demonstrates that over the last 38 years...

...the "chained CPI" would have netted a HIGHER compounded increase than the other method.

And before you presumptuously throw out your insulting "They dont give a good goddamn about our seniors" next time, please think!

I'm 66 years old living on Social Security and savings (and a $280/month pension)

I love how people make assumptions about others and post insulting things without knowing who exactly they're talking about.

[1StrongBlackMan]

159. But .. But ... But ...

You'll be dead and gone before it affects you ...

But then again, so will my great, great, grand-kids' grand-kids ... since the CCPI will never become law, so long as the gop's base includes seniors and there are Democrats in Congress.

[George II]

144. You didn't explain how it's a cut, you just ran from the question....with that I have to ditto...

...the person above - "bullshit"!

[1StrongBlackMan]

158. You missed my point ...

It IS a slowing in anticipated future earnings, i.e., a cut.

Just like, reducing the growth in spend is a cut to the deficit.

[rhett o rick]

136. It's been explained ad nauseam. I am sorry do cant grasp the explanation.

Besides, if it wasnt "a cut" why did he propose it as a compromise to the Republicans?

[George II]

143. Can you direct me to one of those "ad nauseam" explanations? That's what I get....

....every time I ask - "it's already been explained", which to me means the person saying that doesn't really know.

WHO characterized it as a "compromise to the Republicans"?

[rhett o rick]

153. So are you saying that using the Chained CPI wouldnt cut benefits to SS recipients?

Or are you saying that you are ok with cutting benefits? You ask a lot of questions but havent given us the privilege of your insight.

It's simple to find a number of articles explaining how exactly this would be a benefit cut. One article quotes Alan Grayson stating that it would be a cut. But I am guessing you would discount every article for one reason or other. Your rationalization is your key to happiness.

The Republicans want to cut SS benefits and that's why he offered it up.

[George II]

174. But YOU are saying its a cut but apparently don't want to say how. Alan Grayson isn't...

....participating in this discussion.

[rhett o rick]

188. I am guessing you dont give a crap about our seniors but supporting whatever Obama does is more

important. Your feigned ignorance about the SS cuts is becoming believable. Ask a friend to google for you.

[George II]

189. Sure I "give a crap about our seniors", I AM one....yet you're still not willing or....

....unable to explain this "cut" you're talking about. You've been dodging for several posts now, my suspicion is that you know it's NOT a cut, but it sounds good to say.

[rhett o rick]

193. Just because you are a senior doesnt mean that loyalty isnt more important.

Ok, I will play your game one round.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/the-chained-cpi-cut-if-yo_b_2340095.html

[shaayecanaan]

203. Ahem

[Mojorabbit]

41. What do you mean?

"The president isn't definitively taking the idea off the table as part of a broad budget deal that includes tax revenues. "
I don't call that listening to his base.

[passiveporcupine]

62. This^^^

I think too many people are fighting against it right now. I get so many e-mails about this, asking me to sign another petition. I really don't think he can get away with this, but he just keeps it hanging out there like a bomb waiting to drop.

If he ever lets this go through, it will be a huge loss of dems supporting him. Not that it matters now. He can't be reelected.

[zeemike]

112. Yes but the headline says he dropped it

And I guess dropped has now been redefined as not taking it off the table.

[okaawhatever]

168. SS recipients aren't his base. SS recipients vote 61% Republican. That's the rub. That's why

Obama keeps bringing it up. The other reason is to educate the SS recipients as to who really wants to cut their benefits. The Republicans have long talked about cutting "entitlements" what the SS crowd hasn't figured out is that SS is an entitlement program. As in, one of those entitlement programs the Republicans keep talk about cutting. In fact, many of the right wing tax reform groups use cuts in SS to get to achieve their deficit reduction numbers.

It wasn't an accident that the statement released said SS cuts are the number one request of the Republican party.

[Mojorabbit]

169. You can keep saying that but using cuts as bait is not what I expect a Dem President to do.

I don't know how old you are but Seniors know quite well that the President has offered this up. I certainly get
a lot of email on the subject from all manner of organizations that represent that age group.

[okaawhatever]

170. And that's part of the problem. You should ask these organizations why they aren't sending you

emails about how the Republicans want to cut SS. Why they aren't telling you about groups like Americans for Tax Reform, CATO and the like when they'd done "studies" on deficit reduction that include SS reform and/or cuts?

While Obama using Chained CPI as a strategy isn't ideal, the far worse crime is that the Republicans have many of the senior groups keeping their members in the dark. When groups advocate against a Democratic President for doing the same thing the Republicans want to do are they senior groups or are they Republican groups? That would be an interesting question to pose to the leadership of some of these groups.

[Mojorabbit]

172. Why should they send me that when our President has

given them such wonderful ammunition? I get so many emails from so many groups on the subject I doubt many seniors are in the dark about it. AARP is on it and advocating for their membership on the subject. "In a Nov. 8 letter to Congress, AARP adds that Social Security is not the cause of the nation's large budget deficits, explaining that Social Security is a self-financed, off-budget program and any reduction in it does nothing to address the shortfall in the rest of the federal budget.

Download the fact sheet and watch the video below to learn more about the CCPI and how Social Security is being discussed during the current budget debate." right from their website. http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-11-2012/social-security-budget-deficit-chained-CPI.html

Here is the statement I got in my email today.
http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-center/info-02-2014/aarp-pleased-chained-cpi-not-in-budget.html
a snip from that
“The Chained CPI included in the President’s budget last year would have made substantial cuts to Social Security benefits over the next ten years. Cuts to benefits would start immediately, taking money from the pockets of current beneficiaries, and would grow larger over time, having the greatest impact as Americans grow older and rely more on their Social Security benefits. On top of Social Security cuts, Chained CPI would also cut additional benefits for veterans and people with disabilities, and raise taxes on most taxpayers.”

“As financial security grows ever more elusive for Americans of all ages, Medicare and Social Security have grown more important for today’s retirees, and their families. AARP believes we should not reduce the deficit by weakening the programs that provide the very foundation of health and retirement security for current and future generations.”


Seniors are not as in the dark as you might think.

[okaawhatever]

175. I don't think seniors are in the dark in terms of proposed cuts and the effects of said cuts. I

think they're in the dark about where the support for those cuts are.

I take issue here with AARP for this statement:" AARP believes we should not reduce the deficit by weakening the programs that provide the very foundation of health and retirement security for current and future generations.”

While I agree that SS shouldn't be cut, saying SS doesn't affect the deficit is disingenuous. the issue with SS isn't about the deficit so much as it is about the fact that the SS trust fund doesn't have enough to pay current benefits past certain years. I feel like that's a misdirect. Now, SS has come into play with the deficit when Obama (and maybe Bush) cut the payroll tax by two percent to help the economy during the recession. I know Obama transferred money from the general tax fund into SS to make up the difference, but that wasn't a long term issue.

When AARP says things like, "we should not reduce the deficit by weakening the programs" it's counter productive. The SS issue isn't about the deficit, it's about the SS trust fund. I feel like making that claim screws everything up. AARP should be saying, cuts to programs aren't about the deficit, the cuts are designed to help the SS trust fund. Here's what we need to do to keep benefits from being cut and fix the trust fund problem.__________(fill in blank with solution)

One of the issues I have is that SS is basically an insurance program. I feel like we should pay the people back what they put into it plus interest, guaranteed. That's the one way of keeping people from trying to kill it. No one can argue with a program that gives people back what they put into it plus interest. What we then need to do is have programs to help those seniors who fall below a certain income level. The problem with giving unearned SS benefits across the board is that when you go over the amount put into the program, it's a giveaway program. That is fine if you're giving to the poor. The problem is, many currently on SS have healthy incomes. Why are we draining the SS trust fund to give money to people who make 100k a year? Now remember, I'm not talking about withholding money they earned or what they put in, I'm talking about the amounts over that. Instead of giving the money to all SS recipients, why aren't we giving twice as much to the bottom half on the income scale? That's my issue.

I read something a while back that talked about the historical level of poverty for children and seniors in this country. Basically, the children have never had it so bad and the seniors have never had it so good. I have to look at programs like Bush's Medicare Part D. That was a $300 Billion dollar giveaway to pharma that helped the poor somewhat. I don't know what the rules are now, but originally there wasn't an income test to qualify. Also, the government couldn't negotiate prices on the medication. (Obama changed that portion). The program was designed to give seniors relief from the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs. It didn't do that. It didn't address the most fundamental issues, the high cost of Rx drugs. The issues there are enormous, unfair patent protection, ridiculous insurance regs that allow pharma big bucks, etc. So the program didn't fix the problem of high cost Rx, it only helped seniors pay for the high cost Rx so the country wouldn't wake up to the cause of the prices in the first place.

So anyway, I had checked the AARP website before you responded and searched for SS. I clicked on an article that was supposed to be an overview. It listed Heritage as one of the authors. It also listed a woman who I think was part of a more liberal leaning group, but I wasn't in the mood for Heritage so i'm going to go back and research the group the woman belongs to and read up. I'll watch the video you sent. I'll be an AARP member this year, so it's not like I'm unsympathetic, I just know that a lot of info out there was created by "think tanks" and "scholars" who have an agenda other than helping seniors or the budget.

[malokvale77]

182. Thank you. (nt)

[djean111]

2. Good! Except offering Social Security cuts as a "favor" pisses me off, mightily.

The president isn't definitively taking the idea off the table as part of a broad budget deal that includes tax revenues.

And therein lies a tale. I wouldn't celebrate right now.
He seems to really really want to do this.

[ProSense]

7. First

"The president isn't definitively taking the idea off the table as part of a broad budget deal that includes tax revenues. "

...it's not in the budget. Second, that's a sure sign it's dead. That statement puts the onus on Republicans in some hypothetical scenario.

It's not in the budget. Yay!

[YvonneCa]

97. And 'tax revenue' discussions include big oil revenue..

...subsidies If I understand correctly what Dems are fighting to change. There is NO reason such prosperous companies need our taxes to underwrite their business...especially since we are trying to switch to a clean energy, non-middle east dependent economy.

YAaaay indeed!!!!

[malokvale77]

183. Bingo (nt)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. Lol. Always. Always. When in doubt, attack Obama

Tried and true method of "progressives" who don't really have a handle on governing a country.

[djean111]

13. I am not in doubt of any damned thing.

Not definitely off the table means it is not really off the table.
No matter who is president.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. Wow. You just blew my mind. Absence is not presence. Things change, MAN

Lol.

[okaawhatever]

34. No, it's politics pure and simple. It was also a move I appreciated. Republs are screaming for cuts

to budget. Democrats have fought to keep cuts away from Soc Security for years. Currently the majority of soc security recipients vote Republican. It's not a winner for the Democrats, but it's aligned with their positions, so each year, the Democrats have had to give up something to get a win for the Republicans constituents. Additionally, the Republican voters who are on SS have no idea that the Republicans want to cut SS. They think "entitlements" mean someone else. They have no idea that most of the cuts groups like Cato show in their proposals with huge cuts to "entitlement" programs include SS. SS is an "entitlement" program. Again, most seniors don't know that.

In the statement Obama points out the Republican hypocrisy on this:

"The compromise embedded in last year’s Budget included policies like chained CPI -- the number one policy change that Republicans had asked for in previous fiscal negotiations," said a White House official. "However, over the course of last year, Republicans consistently showed a lack of willingness to negotiate on a deficit reduction deal, refusing to identify even one unfair tax loophole they would be willing to close, despite the President’s willingness to put tough things on the table." (emphasis mine)

Every time the GOP screams cuts, Obama has said sure, how's about we look at SS, you know the program that affects your voters, and the Republicans have backed down. It's smart politics and gradually educating the seniors. You don't waste political capital on things to benefit the opposition. It seems the Republicans have probably agreed to some sort of compromise to get Obama not to ask for it. Ha ha. They blinked. I guess they got tired of seniors figuring out they didn't really have their backs.

[JoePhilly]

47. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. I have pointed this out since the 1st time it was offered ...

But know one wanted to hear it. And those that ultimately did hear it, responded: "Well ... I don't appreciate being made a pawn" ... As if we are now, suddenly, pawns in the game of politics.

[okaawhatever]

125. Those people know the truth, and I don't think they are serious Democrats. I think they're trolls

here to cause problems. We have a hundred or so trolls always bringing up the same things. Look at this week, no negative Obama stories so they started the gender wars. There will be three or four posts about this, never mentioning that the statement says "Obama kept including it because it was the Republicans number one request." lol. I loved that.

Earlier I saw a thread that was going for the race divide. Call these people out each and every time. They only want to divide the vote or keep people disenchanted so they won't turn out in 2014.

Keep up the good work. I haven't seen your posts in a while. There's another poster (I think may be a troll) who has a similar type name. For a while I thought you went over to the dark side. Then I realized I had the name wrong, thank goodness.

[malokvale77]

186. You are way off base on this.

One has nothing to do with the other.

[JoePhilly]

3. Putin made him do it!!!

I've been told over and over about Obama's secret plan to gut/slash/kill Social Security right here on DU!!

It was absolutely, positively, going to happen!! Soon!!!!

There is just no way he'd give up that evil plan ... well, unless maybe Putin asked him to.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. All hail Putin. The clear winner here.

[rhett o rick]

10. So you are disappointed that he dumped cutting SS and Medicare? I'm not surprised.

And yet you hide it well with a nonsensical post about Putin. Anything to get out of committing yourself.

[JoePhilly]

17. I have said repeatedly, that Obama was never going to cut Social Security.

I've said that over, and over, and over, and over. I can't count how many times.

Almost every time I saw a DU thread in which folks were predicting Obama's imminent cuts to Social Security, which has happened about quarterly since mid to late 2009, I have said "Its not going to happen."

Every time folks here screamed about Obama's evil plan, I said ... "not happening".

I have also said, repeatedly, that he's dangling a carrot in front of the GOP, daring them to try and take it.

It will be fun to watch DU's Combustible Hair Club try to find a way to dismiss this.

You watch, there will be many posts in the OPs about this (there are 2 or 3 already) in which the same folks who have been freaking out every couple months, absolutely sure the cuts were imminent, will be dismissing this entirely.

They will claim that Obama still plans to do it ... you just have to read between the lines.

[okaawhatever]

38. Absolutely. The line in the press release about including it in last years budget because it was

"the number one policy change the Republicans requested." is brilliant. Time for the republican-voting social security crowd to wake up. The Republicans are not your friends. Of course Obama proposed the cuts, the Republicans can't let it happen because SS recipients vote majority Republican. Obama gets to advertise however many billion in proposed tax cuts, and the Republicans can't let it go through because it's their voters that it affects.

The people on here who are slamming Obama over this really don't care about the situation or they would have bothered to learn this info a long time ago. They just want a good opportunity to bash someone.

[rhett o rick]

44. During all your "over and over" did you once state that you did not support a cut

to SS?

[JoePhilly]

45. Yes, because I also do not support such cuts ... what else ya got?

[rhett o rick]

48. That's refreshing. Now do I dare ask if you support the TPP? nm

[JoePhilly]

64. What does that have to do with Obama's evil plan to kill SS?

Did I pass one purity test, so we move on to another?

Whatever ... I am currently ambivalent about TPP, for a few reasons.

1) The information about it, so far, is a jumble. All trade agreements are not evil, although trade agreements can be. I've yet to find any source that seems credible on either side of it.

2) At one time I came to DU because it was a great place to find objective information. While I still use DU that way, its also become a place for endless freak-outs on topics like Social Security. What I find is that the louder DU gets about some topic, the more freaked out it gets, the LESS likely the info is to be accurate.

Now, at this point, the negotiations around TPP are moving rather slow. Many nations unable to agree on a rather wide variety of topics. Some discussion about ways to improve work conditions in other countries, and also some hair on fire stuff about how global trade is going to kill us all. But the info is all over the map.

So at this point, its not near the top of my issues list. We need global trade. We also need to make sure it doesn't hurt American workers. At this pace, and with the current Congress, TPP won't move much.

Now, on global trade, take the recent VW Union vote in Tennessee. VW is concerned, as are its German workers because they don't want US workers being a drag on THEIR wages. VW is now questioning if opening locations in the US South is a good idea because of GOP interference. That's actually a good sign.

We live in a global economy, and that's not going to change. So that means we will have trade agreements. And so, before we freak out, before I freak out, I want to see details ... not just the standard DU screaming, nor the standard rah-rah that's also out there in other sources currently.

[YvonneCa]

106. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better. :) n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. +1 ...

[i{1SBM takes a seat and prepares for the next round of "He's really gonna do it this time" in 3 ... 2... }

[Sheepshank]

134. If he moves the goal posts often enough....

he'll finally get you at a "gotcha" policy.

[lumpy]

171. Reasonable. Thanks.

[zappaman]

230. Well said.

[rhett o rick]

245. Thank you for the decent response. I also came to DU to have decent

debates on the issues. I am sorry if my questions came off as a purity test. My concern is not with what your ideology is but whether you are here to enter discussions or here to merely seek one-upsmanship.

We must assure ourselves that this trade agreement is not evil. From the parts I've read about and according to people I believe in like Alan Grayson, I am worried. We cant wait until it's passed to fight back. I would rather error on the side of over reacting against it than under reacting. I dont believe it's very democratic or Democratic to negotiate this secretly from our elected representatives. Although both my Democratic Senators seem to favor it.

We need specific programs to bolster the middle and lower classes and I dont for a second believe that can or should be done in secret by major corporations. Their driving goal is to make profits whether or not it harms the 99%.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. At least he is dropping the cut he never offered which isn't really a cut if he was offering it....

.... but now that he is dropping it, it is a cut. If it goes back on the table it is no longer a cut.



On the table = not a cut and you are a filthy liar for calling it a cut.

Off the table = proof you are a filthy liar for insinuating The President was offering a cut (which wasn't a cut) because see right here he took the cut off the table and he doesn't like cuts (that aren't cuts)

I think I got it now. I have to go lay down The room is spinning.

[JoePhilly]

20. Or ...

Obama dangled a carrot in front the GOP, daring them to try and take it, knowing that even trying to take it would destroy them.

He was never going to give them any cuts.

And those on DU who have been SURE Obama was planning to make such cuts, claiming that he in fact WANTED to make those cuts (cause he hates the poor and the middle class), will now struggle to explain why he's pulled the carrot back.

[Armstead]

35. Yes i guess some of us aren't able to follow that ol' 27th dimension chess

I think it's a little simpler than that.

To get version 6A of a "grand bargain" he offered something he thought the GOP wanted thinking that only "my friends on the left" would care about. The GOP didnlt bite, and they also became even more ornery and resistant.

So this time Obama wisely chose to leave it off the table, knowing the GOP buttheads will do anything to oppose anything, and Obama knew the political damage that Chained CPI would stir up again was not worth it.

I suspect -- just guessing -- if the GOP were ever to say "Ya know, maybe we can make a deal, if you take that scalpel to SS benefits you mentioned" that you'd find it back on the table.

[JoePhilly]

43. I'm guessing you are not very good at chess.

We aren't even talking middle school chess here.

I offer you a piece, but its part of a trade that you can't actually make. I know it. You know it. Making the trade would put you in a terrible position going forward.

This kind of a maneuver is a pretty basic chess tactic. It creates "tension" on the board.

Now ... if you would like to make a prediction about when Obama will make a deal with the GOP on these Social Security cuts that he wants so desperately, please make it.

Don't "make a guess" ... if Obama wants to make these cuts, you should be able to make a prediction.

My prediction ... no cuts will be made.

Well?

[Armstead]

87. I didn't say HE wanted the cuts...Just willing to make them

I'm not going to predict anything these days.

Anyway, gambling on the GOP's reluctance to cut something like that is a gamble.

Based on the GOP's recent behavior -- such as taking food out of people's mouths -- a sense of caution about the perception of shamelessness is not something those sociopaths posses these days.

[JoePhilly]

96. Ahhh ... but the President is under no obligation to accept

their offer.

Its not a gamble. If the GOP says "OK, we want to accept those cuts to Social Security, and for those, we will give you X".

President Obama responds "sorry, not nearly enough for me to allow YOU to kill millions of seniors." Or something similar.

The fact that I am willing to let you to tell me how much you will give me for my mint condition Babe Ruth limited edition rookie card, does not mean I have to ACCEPT your offer.

But, if I get you to make such an offer, I now know something that I did not know before ... the amount you're willing to spend to get it.

The GOP is afraid to be public on this topic. Which is why this is an EASY political tactic for the President to use on this topic.

[Armstead]

100. Whatever...I'm just glad to see them gone for now, and I hope they stay gone

[JoePhilly]

103. I think the reality is ...

These programs exist.

The GOP hates them.

Therefore they are always either near, or even on, the table.

Moreover, if we want to lower the age, increase the cap, or make other improvements, they're on the table.

[1StrongBlackMan]

149. Perhaps if someone explained WHY CCPI won't go anywhere ...

And WHY the gop can't take up the carrot And, WHY President Obama (and team) have instituted a great strategy on this issue ... I'm pretty certain no one has explained it before. Wait! What? ...

Look at the polling, Democrats and the rest of the Left hate them (the gop); but more importantly, (and I’ve written this so many times, all I have to do a push control-V) a solid plurality of Independent voters AND republican voters (a solid majority, when taken together) see the gop as the party unwilling to compromise; and therefore, the reason nothing is getting done in Washington.

In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering) and expand the Senate in 2014, Democrats need this cohort of Independent voters and republican voters to either: vote Democratic (which is unlikely); to vote 3rd-party (which will reduce the gerrymandering effect, as it will dilute the gop vote more so than the Democratic vote); or to stay home.

Enter President Obama’s Budget Proposal that included the CCPI … to the Left, it’s Hair On Fire time because NO REAL DEMOCRAT would ever propose “cutting ‘entitlement’ programs”; but look at it from the POV of the target cohort … they see President Obama (and by extension, Democrats) as willing to move on “entitlements” IF the gop is willing to move on taxes (i.e., COMPROMISE). (It is only the Left that is viewing CCPI in isolation). And what is the cohort seeing … the gop continuing to refuse to compromise (that’s what the polling is saying).

Does this strategy risk, disillusioned Democrats sitting home? … Well, yes. And some on the Left are, seemingly, doing everything in their power to make that happen, with their constant President Obama is (and by extension, Democrats are) sell-out devil(s)” mantras, without pointing out that President Obama is not running for office, AND by not pointing out what Democrats (that ARE/will be running) are actually saying … which goes from Pelosi’s, “We’ll consider CCPI; BUT ONLY IF the gop GIVES on taxes” to Markey’s (and the majority of the Democratic Caucsus’) “Hell NO … Leave SS and Medicare alone.”

While I, personally, think that the Pelosi/President Obama position is the wiser strategy, 18 months out from the election, as it continues to reinforce what the targeted cohort already believes … that the gop is unwilling to compromise, Democrats saying “Hell NO!” signals that SS and Medicare will not/cannot be touched.

So Message to the “Hold ‘em accountable” Left and waivering Democrats:

Stop saying/promoting President Obama’s Budget Proposal as merely CCPI (and a few other “anti-Democratic” positions) and help the Democratic Party’s cause by, at a minimum, stating what the Democrats in Congress are actually saying!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251304468

And ...

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.

So fear not … CCPI is going nowhere except to further damage the republican party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3904206

Maybe folk will listen this time ...

[JoePhilly]

150. Naaaaa.

This is just another of Obama's tricks. He knows we don;t want these cuts ... so he's pretending to pull them from his budget ... then, when we look away for a second ...

BAMMM!!

Obama kills granny.

[1StrongBlackMan]

154. LOL ...

But only if Putin gives him the OK!

[Skittles]

80. yup

critical thinking has its benefits

[Bluenorthwest]

4. The president isn't definitively taking the idea off the table.

Let me know when he definitively takes it off the table and flushes it down his bipartisan plumbing.

[djean111]

16. I am starting to think that that sentence is not visible to some.

[woo me with science]

102. "and perhaps more importantly it solidifies the framing of 'SS is a deficit issue'"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024535030#post14

MisterP (13,319 posts)

14. and perhaps more importantly it solidifies the framing of "SS is a deficit issue"

"and even the liburls agree that Something Must Be Done"

Important observation by MisterP. This is the continued poisoning of the Democratic message and the entrenchment of Republican/corporate talking points.

[malokvale77]

187. Well put.

Good catch.

[JoePhilly]

22. He'll leave the carrot out until (a) he leaves office, or (b) the GOP tries to take

it ... at which point, he'll choke them with it.

What won't happen? Actual cuts.

[okaawhatever]

40. Do you know what percentage of SS recipients vote Republican? nt

[sakabatou]

6. As Grumpy Cat would say...

[rhett o rick]

11. Thanks for posting. Are you pleased with the news or not? nm

[woo me with science]

14. Translation: He's temporarily removing, during an election year, the ax *he* suspends over our heads

repeatedly as a tool to implement vicious Third Way austerity.

'It will remain on the table."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=733502

The Third Way Social Security Con continues to harm EVERYONE.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4535966

[ProSense]

18. Translation

Translation: He's temporarily removing, during an election year, the ax *he* suspends over our heads repeatedly as a tool to implement vicious Third Way austerity.

...I haz a sad because Obama took Social Security cuts off the table.

[djean111]

19. Only temporarily. So I haz a sad, too!

[ProSense]

23. Well,

"Only temporarily. So I haz a sad, too!"

...if that's how you feel, maybe you could stop being sad..."temporarily."

Still, like I said, it dead (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024534935#post7), Jim.

[laundry_queen]

21. no one is sad he took cuts off the table

they are sad Social Security was on the table to begin with.

[ProSense]

26. Yeah,

"no one is sad he took cuts off the table they are sad Social Security was on the table to begin with."

...on the table "boo." Off the table, "boo."

Also, I think some of the comments here run counter to this assertion: "no one is sad."

[laundry_queen]

32. I put that because some here think we don't have a memory.

I'm pretty sure you were one of the "he never SAID THAT" contingent with regards to SS cuts. Apparently, he did.

[ProSense]

33. I was

"I'm pretty sure you were one of the 'he never SAID THAT' contingent with regards to SS cuts. Apparently, he did. "

...one of the ones who said it was never going to happen. I said it was a Republican proposal to get them to accept tax increases on the Rich. Guess what?

I was right: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024534935#post7

[laundry_queen]

37. LOL. Ok. nt

[Autumn]

28. He took them off the table. But they remain on the table, in event of new budget talks.

I haz a sad over the bullshit spin the White House has put on this and I haz a sad Social Security was put on the table by a President I voted for. I haz a double sad.

[ProSense]

31. No,

"He took them off the table. But they remain on the table, in event of new budget talks. I haz a sad over the bullshit spin the White House has put on this and I haz a sad Social Security was put on the table by a President I voted for. I haz a double sad."

...it's dead (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024534935#post7), Jim.

Still, enjoy that "sad" that you haz.

[Autumn]

39. Yes. You enjoy your happy that the CPI is off the table when it isn't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/obama-budget_n_4824387.html


"One official said the offer would remain on the table in the event of new budget talks but that it would not be part of the president's formal spending blueprint for fiscal 2015."

Spin, spin, spin all you can I will deal with my sad because they are still on the table in event the pukes decide to negotiate, put there by a "Democratic" President.

[ProSense]

42. You know

"One official said the offer would remain on the table in the event of new budget talks but that it would not be part of the president's formal spending blueprint for fiscal 2015."

...that sounds like it's dead (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024534935#post7), Jim.

"Yes. You enjoy your happy that the CPI is off the table when it isn't"

Hey, keep believing that and enjoy that sad you haz.

[Autumn]

51. Enjoy whatever it is you do, because you don't have much else to work with

Hang in there,

[ProSense]

56. This

"Enjoy whatever it is you do, because you don't have much else to work with"

...from someone determined to be unhappy in the face of good news.

LOL!

[Autumn]

59. I'm very happy it's taken off for 2015. That is unless the pukes decide to have more talks

then it's back on. I guess I will just hold out hope for the pukes to do the right thing. Shit, or is that the wrong thing? Who the hell knows. Let's just hope the fucking low life pieces of shit keep us from getting a budget deal that includes cuts to SS that a "Democratic" president put on the table.

Now I hope you enjoy your day and I did enjoy the happy sadz and the haz but I am off to enjoy my day I have a pie to bake. You take care and thanks for all you do.

[JoePhilly]

27. If Obama doesn't make these cuts ... it undermines their ...

"Obama hates the poor, the middle class, and everyone who is not part of the 1%" meme.

Clearly, Obama has a secret plan to kill Social Security, and this move is really just a way to trick us into taking our eye off the ball.

As soon as we look away ... BAM!!! Obama kills granny.

[ProSense]

46. It's why

""Obama hates the poor, the middle class, and everyone who is not part of the 1%" meme. "

...things like Obama raising the minimum wage get met with half-hearted praise and spin (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024522796#post3) and thing like this get ignored.

Obamacare fulfilling promise to older Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521045

[JoePhilly]

50. YUP ... remember ... "he didn't really want to end DADT" either.

Just another example of it.

[Bobbie Jo]

133. Not to mention.....

being flat out wwwwrong.

Again.

[zeemike]

123. Took it off the table?

When he then said it was defiantly not taken off the table?

Damn this dimensional chess is confusing...I guess I had better stick to checkers

[ProSense]

124. That's

"Damn this dimensional chess is confusing...I guess I had better stick to checkers"

...likely best.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. Obama has been president now five years. When the next debate happens, it'll be six...

I'm still waiting for those SS reforms. I'm sure when Obama long leaves office, some DU liberals will still try convincing me he's going to cut Social Security.

They're as bad those people who, still to this day, are petitioning the Supreme Court to remove him from office because he's foreign born.

[Marr]

60. +1

I would hope that anyone jumping on this as a reason to cheer will be honest enough to recognize it as having been bullshit when it's reintroduced later. But I don't expect it.

[woo me with science]

66. WillyT nails it. It's Monty Python at this point.

It's surreal. It's a carnival con game on the American people. And these Third Way feints and manipulations would be hilarious if they weren't driving millions into poverty and despair.

Channeling Monty Python: The "Grand Bargain" Is Not Quite Dead Yet... Just For This Year... http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024535030

[ProSense]

73. Oooh, a thread for

all the people who are sad about this news.

[1StrongBlackMan]

156. Perhaps if someone explained WHY CCPI won't go anywhere ...

And WHY the gop can't take up the carrot And, WHY President Obama (and team) have instituted a great strategy on this issue, people will be less the sad ... I'm pretty certain no one has explained it before. Wait! What? ...


Look at the polling, Democrats and the rest of the Left hate them (the gop); but more importantly, (and I’ve written this so many times, all I have to do a push control-V) a solid plurality of Independent voters AND republican voters (a solid majority, when taken together) see the gop as the party unwilling to compromise; and therefore, the reason nothing is getting done in Washington.

In order to flip the House (because of gerrymandering) and expand the Senate in 2014, Democrats need this cohort of Independent voters and republican voters to either: vote Democratic (which is unlikely); to vote 3rd-party (which will reduce the gerrymandering effect, as it will dilute the gop vote more so than the Democratic vote); or to stay home.

Enter President Obama’s Budget Proposal that included the CCPI … to the Left, it’s Hair On Fire time because NO REAL DEMOCRAT would ever propose “cutting ‘entitlement’ programs”; but look at it from the POV of the target cohort … they see President Obama (and by extension, Democrats) as willing to move on “entitlements” IF the gop is willing to move on taxes (i.e., COMPROMISE). (It is only the Left that is viewing CCPI in isolation). And what is the cohort seeing … the gop continuing to refuse to compromise (that’s what the polling is saying).

Does this strategy risk, disillusioned Democrats sitting home? … Well, yes. And some on the Left are, seemingly, doing everything in their power to make that happen, with their constant President Obama is (and by extension, Democrats are) sell-out devil(s)” mantras, without pointing out that President Obama is not running for office, AND by not pointing out what Democrats (that ARE/will be running) are actually saying … which goes from Pelosi’s, “We’ll consider CCPI; BUT ONLY IF the gop GIVES on taxes” to Markey’s (and the majority of the Democratic Caucsus’) “Hell NO … Leave SS and Medicare alone.”

While I, personally, think that the Pelosi/President Obama position is the wiser strategy, 18 months out from the election, as it continues to reinforce what the targeted cohort already believes … that the gop is unwilling to compromise, Democrats saying “Hell NO!” signals that SS and Medicare will not/cannot be touched.

So Message to the “Hold ‘em accountable” Left and waivering Democrats:

Stop saying/promoting President Obama’s Budget Proposal as merely CCPI (and a few other “anti-Democratic” positions) and help the Democratic Party’s cause by, at a minimum, stating what the Democrats in Congress are actually saying!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251304468


And ...


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.

So fear not … CCPI is going nowhere except to further damage the republican party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3904206


Maybe folk will listen this time ...

[philosslayer]

24. Thank you Mr. President :)

[Jefferson23]

25. K&R.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. So Obama will finally stop cutting Social Security?

There's almost nothing left to cut!! It's almost all gone thanks to Obama!!11!!

[Cha]

36. Thanks Obama!

Grrr

[The Magistrate]

30. Very Glad To Hear It, Ma'am

It is both sound policy and good politics.

And because it is both sound policy and good politics, it should never have been even hinted as a possible course of action in the first place.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[sadoldgirl]

49. It is not clear

whether he listened to the people or the progressive part in Congress. May be, after 5 years in office, he starts to think about his role in history. After all, had he kept this on the table, he would have been the first Democratic president to fiddle with SS. So, let's hope that he keeps it off the table for the remainder of his time in office.

[ProSense]

54. Yes, I'm

"After all, had he kept this on the table, he would have been the first Democratic president to fiddle with SS."

...glad it's gone, but that isn't remotely accurate. At least two other Democratic President changed the formula and taxation of Social Security.

[sadoldgirl]

58. Taxation is one thing

downgrading is quite another.

[ProSense]

71. Yes, taxation takes a big cut out of people's benefits.

It started under Reagan.

[hrmjustin]

53. I am glad he dropped it.

[Hoyt]

55. We've been told for 3 years that Obama was committed to gutting Social Security.

[JoePhilly]

65. He's just trying to trick us.

Soon as we look away ... BAM.

Obama kills granny.

[Hoyt]

89. LOL. He must be.

[Iliyah]

57. K & R

Thank you Mr. President and for the record - no matter what you do some will find a way to bash you. Keep strong and I for one will work hard as hell to get Dems elected in 2014!

[Sassysdad]

61. When has President Obama

gotten an Aye vote for his budgets in the Senate or House of value?
He knows that in a midterm yr, especially going into '16, he has to separate from even Chained CPI, to give the appearance of standing with the base.
Everyone here knows the WH budget is a wishlist that is DOA.

Watch it come up again soon.

[Marr]

63. Impossible. You already assured us they weren't *on* the table. /nt

[ProSense]

68. LOL!

No, I didn't.

Blue linky?

[Marr]

70. You're kidding, right? /nt

[ProSense]

72. No. Blue linky? n/t

[NCTraveler]

67. I was told it wasn't a cut.

Now I am being told it was a cut. So last year, Obama wanted to(had in his budget) cut to SS? This year not so much?

[ProSense]

69. Who told you that?

"Now I am being told it was a cut. So last year, Obama wanted to(had in his budget) cut to SS? This year not so much? "

Still, how could it be a "cut" if it never happened? It was a proposed cut, but now it's not even proposed.

Good news.

[NCTraveler]

76. You are well aware of who.

It was never a question for either of us. As you say, Obama proposed a cut to SS last year. Such a shame a Democratic President, as recently as last year, was proposing cuts to SS.

"It was a proposed cut"

Thankfully he didn't get it.

[ProSense]

79. Yeah,

Such a shame a Democratic President, as recently as last year, was proposing cuts to SS.

"It was a proposed cut"

Thankfully he didn't get it.

...he can take his place among the Democratic Presidents prior to 1970 who never touched Social Security.

LOL!

[NCTraveler]

92. Now that is how to get behind the idea of cuts to SS.

Should have made that a campaign slogan. "I will cut SS...well.....because it has been done before."

Did you think about that before you typed it.

It is nothing but brilliant strategy, as the President, to let the people know that SS needs to be cut. To implant the notion into their minds that it is necessary. Pro, I have seen you disagree with Obama. You know it wasn't one of his good ideas. There is no need for you to find it acceptable that a Democratic President tried to cut SS. With all of the good that Obama has done, I see no need to promote his brain farts as being positive. Plant your flag on a different agenda item.

[ProSense]

98. Oh please,

It is nothing but brilliant strategy, as the President, to let the people know that SS needs to be cut. To implant the notion into their minds that it is necessary. Pro, I have seen you disagree with Obama. You know it wasn't one of his good ideas. There is no need for you to find it acceptable that a Democratic President tried to cut SS. With all of the good that Obama has done, I see no need to promote his brain farts as being positive. Plant your flag on a different agenda item.

...after making the statement that it's a "such a shame a Democratic President, as recently as last year, was proposing cuts to SS," it's fairly disingenous to pretend that it hasn't happened before in order to dismiss the fact that it isn't likely to happen under this President.

[NCTraveler]

105. There is a serious flaw in your thought process.

The guy who promoted SS cuts last year is still at the helm this year. Will you tell me, which president, pre1970, is currently at the helm.

"it's fairly disingenous to pretend that it hasn't happened before in order to dismiss the fact that it isn't likely to happen under this President."

I have not dismissed anything. Quite the opposite. I am fully aware of Obama's want to cut SS. He made that clear last year. It is still on the table this year. Where do you get that "it isn't likely to happen under this President"? This President proposed and backed cuts to SS.

[ProSense]

107. No

"There is a serious flaw in your thought process. The guy who promoted SS cuts last year is still at the helm this year. Will you tell me, which president, pre1970, is currently at the helm."

...the one with the "serious flaw" in "thought process" is the one handwringing about what was proposed in order to dismiss the news that it's no longer part of the proposal.

[NCTraveler]

109. I love this!!!!

"...the one with the "serious flaw" in "thought process" is the one handwringing about what was proposed in order to dismiss the news that it's no longer part of the proposal. "

[ProSense]

113. Finally, you're happy. LOL! n/t

[George II]

75. I've pointed this out several times before, but no one seems to want to acknowledge reality....

....if the annual Social Security increases were "chained" (a terrible word, by the way) to the CPI for the last 39 years, the net result would have been a HIGHER increase overall than the COLAs actually instituted.

It's really annoying that people insist that a "chained CPI" is a "cut" in Social Security benefits, and even more annoying that people refuse to recognize the reality of the "chained CPI" vs. existing method.

When I get a chance I'll post the comparison of the 39 years yet one more time.

To me, knowing the facts and now knowing that Obama will NOT be using the "chained CPI", THIS concession is indeed a "cut" to the annual increases.

[Skittles]

77. so.....Democratic of him

[Autumn]

81. Makes me proud Skittles.

Very proud.

[Skittles]

85. sorry

I find it hard to be proud he is taking back what should never have been put forth, although I am glad he came to his senses

[Autumn]

94. I'm sorry too. I hit post before I hit the

sarcasm button. But you know what Skittles, it's in the article that they remain on the table in the event the republicans decide on new budget talks. in the event the republicans decide on new budget talks Go fucking figure that one out.

[Skittles]

95. I hear you

yes indeed

[woo me with science]

82. It's temporary, though!

It's an election year for the Third Way!

[L0oniX]

240. I'm still never going to vote for him again!

[Skittles]

246. yes: I am a "hater" who.......voted for him twice

[YvonneCa]

83. Good. Thanks for posting...

...this, Prosense.

[George II]

84. Here we go - a comparison of the historic COLA vs. "chained CPI" - note the result!!!

Comparison of the historic Social Security COLA to the CPI back to 1976:

Over those 38 years the COLA was higher than the CPI in only 16 years, it was LOWER than the CPI in 22 years.

If one were to take an average of the two (not the best way to compare, but....), the average COLA was 3.93% and the average CPI was 3.97%.

Further, if one were to take $1.00 and compound the annual adjustment for both the historic COLA and the CPI:

In 2013 would be $4.26 using the historic COLA and $4.33 using the CPI.

So by NOT using the chained CPI the increases were actually LOWER (i.e., in the terminology used around here, a "cut&quot

[Iliyah]

108. I know, but all they see is CUTS

w/o looking further.

[George II]

110. If anything they should call them "lower INCREASES"!!! (which would be false too...)

[ProSense]

86. Boehner, an

update to the OP piece:

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office responded by strongly criticizing the White House for abandoning Social Security cuts.

"This reaffirms what has become all too apparent: the president has no interest in doing anything, even modest, to address our looming debt crisis," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Boehner. "The one and only idea the president has to offer is even more job-destroying tax hikes, and that non-starter won’t do anything to save the entitlement programs that are critical to so many Americans. With three years left in office, it seems the president is already throwing in the towel."

[Iliyah]

104. LOL

Well GOPers how about the 1-2%ers pay their fair taxes alongwith corporations AND creating jobs huh!

[kentuck]

88. Are we supposed to celebrate this?

How kind.

[ProSense]

91. I am.

But to each his/her own.

Yay!

[JoePhilly]

99. NO way ...

... we're supposed to be trying to figure out how this plays into Obama's larger evil plan to kill social security.

[kentuck]

128. Just kidding, Joe Philly...

We knew he wasn't serious about it all along. He was just playing chess.

[progressoid]

141. Yay!!!!

Of course we should celebrate. A Democrat discovered the completely obvious; that a popular Democratic program shouldn't be cut!!

[ProSense]

145. Hey

"Of course we should celebrate. A Democrat discovered the completely obvious; that a popular Democratic program shouldn't be cut!!"

...better late than never. Like I said, he will join the ranks of the Democratic Presidents before 1970 who didn't cut Social Security.

Both Carter's and Clinton's policies led to cuts in Social Security benefits.

[NorthCarolina]

241. Maybe we should start a new list because he would rightly fit in the ranks of Democratic Presidents

who attempted to cut Social Security but failed.

[reformist2]

90. Finally! But this was like pulling teeth, and it shouldn't have been.

[another_liberal]

93. Yes! Now you're talking!

That man gets a thank you email from me.

[woo me with science]

117. Stockholm Syndrome makes an excellent metaphor.

"Thank you for temporarily suspending your threat to assault Social Security (just during the election year, of course!), while continuing to reinforce the Republican talking point that the cuts may be threatened again in the future BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIT THAT IS NOT RELATED TO SOCIAL SECURITY.

Sheesh.

Do you write thank you emails to people who temporarily stop torturing your housecats, too?

[ProSense]

119. You're taking this much too hard. n/t

[woo me with science]

132. President again links SS cuts to the deficit.

President again implies to the country that SS is tied to the deficit.

Who needs Republicans when we have Democrats spreading this lying poison of justifications for cutting SS?

A "temporary" suspension of the ax over our heads, during an election year, of course....with unconscionable references to the deficit as the justification for its being temporary.....is the cynical, manipulative cherry on top.

[ProSense]

137. Breaking: No SS cuts in the budget.

[another_liberal]

126. Point taken.

(sigh)

[TBF]

101. Nice!!

[cali]

114. good. that doesn't excuse his having been willing to use it in that callous way as

a bargaining chip, but at least he's not putting it in the budget this year.

of course, he's still dangling it in front of the pukes, which is disgraceful.

[Autumn]

127. cali I just want to thank you for this OP you have posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024535742

[cali]

139. oh thanks, autumn. back at you.

[ProSense]

148. I know, right

Have to call out those "defender adorer types."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024535742#post28


Seething with anger.

[Autumn]

151. There's call outs and then there's call outs

[ProSense]

157. The absolute best thing about this

is that no one has to listen to "Obama put Social Security cuts in his budget" from now until the election.

This is a good thing for Democrats.

[Autumn]

161. You betcha!

[ProSense]

116. Senator Sanders' statement

posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024535612

[sadoldgirl]

120. Now the cry baby

is at it again. When will they admit that they forced us to live in their austerity dream already?

[Rex]

130. It is nice to see the POTUS listening to his liberal supporters.

Bout time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. and now we can both say....

hahahahahahahahaha and HA!

[Maedhros]

135. You mean Social Security cuts were in his original budget?

Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2014, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

WTF?

ON EDIT: I misread the OP. I saw this:

President Barack Obama will drop Social Security cuts he supported last year in his upcoming budget proposal, White House sources told TPM.

and assumed an earlier budget had been drawn up, from which SS cuts were "dropped." Maybe the White House sources meant to say "President Obama will not include Social Security cuts, which he supported last year, in his upcoming budget proposal."

[ProSense]

142. I know. Good thing he took it out, right? n/t

[gopiscrap]

152. Good

I just pray that they won't fuck anyone else over!

[Coyotl]

155. K&R

[ProSense]

160. Here's

a history lesson: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024536721

[JHB]

162. Great! Why the hell did he support them in the first place?

[ProSense]

163. Because he knew Republicans were really smart. n/t

[JHB]

164. He didn't know the Republicans would play "block everything" with him..

...and they weren't exactly hiding it. Big blind spots like that kind of cut into the faith that this was all clever maneuvering.

[ProSense]

165. Well then, we're lucky to have these Republicans. n/t

[JHB]

166. Have a day, ProSense

[JoePhilly]

198. He dared the GOP to try and touch the carrot.

They were too afraid to try.

Pretty simple.

[JHB]

207. There's a simpler way to handle that...

Don't dare them. When they try to cut it all on their own, bang a gong and make sure everyone knows who's trying to steal their money.

They'll deny it of course, but when they do don't let them forget that Bush tried it the moment he thought he could get away with it, while also denying it.

Nice, clear message, and it doesn't leave part of your own team up in arms.

[JoePhilly]

208. Our own are up in arms all the time.

You dare them because you want them to try, and then get crucified for trying.

Let's think a second.

IF Obama wanted to cut SS, the right time was in March of 2009. Economic Collapse makes for a great opportunity to kill SS. The American people would have been willing to cut it then.

But that did not happen.

There is no risk in daring the GOP to declare their desire to kill SS. The disgruntled part of the left will always find something to scream about.

[JHB]

236. That's a facinating viewpoint

I've thought about it for considerably more than a second, and I'm obviously not connecting the dots that you are.

Can I impose upon you to expand upon the reasoning and assumptions behind your view?

[JoePhilly]

237. Feel free.

I've been explaining to others on DU that Obama will not be cutting social security since 2009.

And many of them still don't get it.

Perhaps when he leaves office, and still has not cut it, they'll catch on.

[eridani]

167. Bernie Sanders letter

Sen. Bernie Sanders today welcomed White House assurances that, unlike last year, President Barack Obama will not call for cuts in Social Security benefits as part of a budget blueprint that he will submit to Congress. “I applaud President Obama for his important decision to protect Social Security,” said Bernie, who founded the Senate’s Defending Social Security Caucus.

On Feb. 14, Bernie and 15 other senators sent a letter to the White House urging the president to spare Social Security in his budget for the coming fiscal year. Last year, the president proposed changing how the consumer price index is calculated to lower future cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients and disabled veterans.

“With the middle class struggling and more people living in poverty than ever before, we cannot afford to make life even more difficult for seniors and some of the most vulnerable people in America,” Bernie said.

Read the senators' letter to the president
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/letter-on-social-security-medicare-and-medicaid-2014?inline=file&utm_source=target&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Read+the+senators+letter+to+the+president+featuredlinkurl&utm_campaign=Target:+White+House+Reverses+Course+on+Social+Security+Cuts+02-21

[840high]

173. Thank you Bernie.

[blkmusclmachine]

176. Cuts to the Social Safety Net and your EARNED Social Security should <<never>> have been on the chop

block. NEVER! Obama gets no "appreciation" for this. None whatsoever.

[ProSense]

178. Obama

"Cuts to the Social Safety Net and your EARNED Social Security should <<never>> have been on the chop

block. NEVER! Obama gets no 'appreciation' for this. None whatsoever."

...sucks, now and forever!!!

[malokvale77]

190. I'm curious...

are you so well off, that the thought of Social Security cuts is a matter to you?

It scares the hell out of a large percent of the population.

[ProSense]

191. You misunderstand

I'm curious...are you so well off, that the thought of Social Security cuts is a matter to you?

I'm not laughing at Social Security. I'm laughing at the bizarre reaction to the news.

[malokvale77]

194. No Pro...

I haven't misunderstood anything about your posts.

You have been at every one who has stated concerns about Social Security cuts.

You didn't answer my question. Are you so well off?

[ProSense]

195. Well, if

...you insist.

[malokvale77]

196. Just what I thought.

[ProSense]

197. What? n/t

[malokvale77]

199. Suddenly dense?

[ProSense]

200. Yeah, enlighten me. Spill the beans.

What?

[malokvale77]

201. Iwill enlighten you with your favorite response...

[ProSense]

202. .

[malokvale77]

204. You are a bit,,,

of a disappointment.

[ProSense]

205. I'm celebrating no cuts to Social Security.

And enjoying the anger it has generated.

[malokvale77]

210. The anger was from the suggested cuts.

But you knew that.



Your agenda is rather clear. A very large percentage of the people, who participate on this forum are well aware of it.

Keep on keeping on, Pro.

[ProSense]

211. LOL!

"Your agenda is rather clear. A very large percentage of the people, who participate on this forum are well aware of it. "

Obama deserves to be dumped!

[malokvale77]

212. Are you advocating dumping...

a democratically elected President?

Because I sure wasn't. I was speaking of your disdain for those who are worried about cuts in payed for benefits.

For some of us here, that is all we have. Hence, my question about you being so well off, that it is of no concern to you.

Your reply is consistently . It's good to know you find us such a laughing matter.

[ProSense]

217. No,

"I was speaking of your disdain for those who are worried about cuts in payed for benefits."

..."disdain" for the knee-jerk reaction to the news that the proposal is not in the budget.

"For some of us here, that is all we have. Hence, my question about you being so well off, that it is of no concern to you. "

Well, if you can imagine that everyone who disagrees with you is "well off," you can justify why they do, huh?

I mean, are you implying that anyone who welcomes this news is "well off"?

Your reply is consistently . It's good to know you find us such a laughing matter.

Again, the anger generated by this news is hilarious because it's focused on something that didn't happen in order to dismiss that it isn't going to happen.

Frankly, it's bizarre.

[malokvale77]

218. Your continued disdain is noted.

[ProSense]

220. Breaking: Obama To Drop Social Security Cuts In His Budget

Knee-jerk reaction:

[malokvale77]

222. Gee Pro...

No knee-jerk here. I replied to that OP (this thread).

Are you losing it?

The concern was that it was on the table to begin with.
You justified it.
Now you cheer it's off the table.

Sorry you're mad.

[ProSense]

224. Yikes!

"The concern was that it was on the table to begin with. "

Is that the "concern" now that it's not in the budget?

I mean, it's like there is an inability to assimilate good news.

[malokvale77]

227. Pro...

It's the "inability' to take you seriously.

You have taken more time to respond to me then you have to the long time DUers that question you.

Best thing I can say is, you didn't give be your infamous blue links. Of course in this case they wouldn't serve you well.

You never did answer my question. I never expected you would.

In your honor..............

PS: "assimilate good news" REALLY?

[ProSense]

228. LOL

"Pro...It's the 'inability' to take you seriously."

I always wonder about people who say things like this when they seem so focused on me. LOL!

"You have taken more time to respond to me then you have to the long time DUers that question you."

Now that's hilarious because I really had no idea you existed on this board before you showed up in this thread. Yet here you are, and referring to me as "Pro."

Being a "long time DUers" doesn't say much. Some have gone bye bye.

[malokvale77]

229. hmm

"I always wonder about people who say things like this when they seem so focused on me. LOL!'

High on yourself, much?

"Now that's hilarious because I really had no idea you existed on this board before you showed up in this thread. Yet here you are, and referring to me as "Pro.""

Well, I could refer to you the way I really see you but then I would get a PIZZA delivery.

I'm a nobody to you. Not really worthy of your attention. Yet you feel the need to make me feel lesser. You're so "special"

[ProSense]

231. LoL

"I always wonder about people who say things like this when they seem so focused on me. LOL!'

High on yourself, much?

LOL!

Well, I could refer to you the way I really see you but then I would get a PIZZA delivery.

Do it! LOL!

I'm a nobody to you. Not really worthy of your attention. Yet you feel the need to make me feel lesser. You're so "special"

Hungry?

[malokvale77]

232. True Colors...

Goodnight.

[ProSense]

233. You

"Goodnight."

...sleep tight, and thanks for helping keep this thread kicked.

[stupidicus]

177. would that be the thing that was part of so many overactive imaginations

according to the blindly loyal around here?

[ProSense]

179. It's gone.

[stupidicus]

206. is that emoticon use a passive/aggressive thing?

of course I'm pleased it will be excluded from his budget, but what does that have to do with all the functional equivalents of a Tea Party "moran" in debating tactics, and that invested so much time and text into stupidly arguing that it would never be part of his budget, ergo nothing to worry about?

Many were expressing those concerns pre-election over that which would never be in his budget, and were charged with things like being stealth Romney supporters and associated things, like trying to throw the election, etc, etc, etc.

It followed pretty much the same trajectory as the NSA thing, where the idol worship was the same, only the insults were changed to accomodate a different charge against dear leader. How did that one work out for the BHO team?

Those clowns are batting a zero, ain't they?

Are those kinda people just stupid in your opinion, or do they suffer from some mental malady or character flaw? You dishonestly and baselessly charging my sadness where it doesn't exist nonverbally with something like emoticons, answers a question about you, but in no way answers the one I asked.

try again

or plead the fifth

[ProSense]

209. No,

"is that emoticon use a passive/aggressive thing?"

...I need to provide something else for the "blue linky" whiners to complain about and focus on.

It's gone!

[stupidicus]

243. thanks for conceding your emoticon effort was stupid and dishonest

and of course, the dishonest dodging on the matter raised speaks for itself.

thanks, but your participation in such achieved common knowledge status around here long ago, didn't it?

oh that's right, that's just another question you can dodge.

never mind

[eridani]

215. It was that thing that so many with "overactive imaginations" worked very hard to prevent

Do you have a problem with success or something? Chained CPI is still on the table--just not during an election year, thank heavens. We will still need to fight it in 2015

[stupidicus]

242. I love success

like having it demonstrated how pathetic the pov and the lengths some went to around here to silence those expressing concerns over something that would never ever be in his budget.

[eridani]

247. That is wishful thinking. If he didn't want it in his budget, why was it on the table?

Why did he even have a Deficit Commission stacked with Social Security haters?

[stupidicus]

248. what we have here, is a failure to communicate

lol

I'd guess we're largely on the same page on the matter.

I'm sure a cursory search of my diary here would show that I've long thought (and argued here) that what you're suggesting (or appear to be to me anyway) is most likely the case.

For the sake of argument, and so as to not confuse or overload the impaired one I addressed it to, I've confined my remarks solely to the initial claim made by many of the pottymouths that it would never ever be seen in his budget. It seems to me that we're largely in agreement, not only that it was a proposal that was to be found in his budget, but also on the matter of why it was -- which likely had nothing to do with the "trial balloon" or "Nth dimensional chess" BS they've subsequently spewed, but rather because he doesn't think that we should any longer "defend things as they were written in 1938", which he made clear way back in 2006.

[eridani]

249. So he thinks the New Deal was a shitty idea?

Millions of real Democrats rather like the New Deal.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

180. when was the last time a President's budget proposal

passed? the last vote I remember was 0-414...

sP

[Enrique]

184. there never were any such cuts

Obama just revealed himself as an Obama hater by suggesting his budget had SS Cuts.

[ProSense]

185. Obama under fire for backtracking on trims to Social Security

No, that's not a thread title, it's a Fox Noise headline.

Obama under fire for backtracking on trims to Social Security
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/officials-obama-drops-budget-cost-living-trims/

[magical thyme]

192. so they admit 'chained CPI' is a cut, and they're taking it out of the budget proposal

but not taking it off the table. So it's gone from an outright offer to a bargaining chip.

"The president isn't definitively taking the idea off the table as part of a broad budget deal that includes tax revenues."

Well, it's a baby step in the right direction, although the GOP won't agree to anything, with or without it. At least they aren't giving it away before negotiations.

Now it's simply reduced to a bargaining chip. Hopefully there will be enough pressure continued to kill the idea even as a bargaining chip.

[pacalo]

214. Good news.

Social security shouldn't be in the budget in the first place. It's a private fund paid for by the working class that has been raided for decades by lawmakers as its own rainy-day, rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul source. Al Gore was spot-on about creating a "lock box".

[markpkessinger]

216. Wait . . . so now you are CONCEDING that he supported those cuts?

I mean, time was when the resident members of the Palace Guard resolutely tried to deny these were ever even under consideration. But the opening sentence of the article indicates otherwise:

President Barack Obama will drop Social Security cuts he supported last year in his upcoming budget proposal, White House sources told TPM.

Nevertheless, I stand in awe of your ability to spin any outcome whatsoever into an occasion to take a victory lap. Brava!

[ProSense]

219. Here:

"The compromise embedded in last year’s Budget included policies like chained CPI -- the number one policy change that Republicans had asked for in previous fiscal negotiations," said a White House official. "However, over the course of last year, Republicans consistently showed a lack of willingness to negotiate on a deficit reduction deal, refusing to identify even one unfair tax loophole they would be willing to close, despite the President’s willingness to put tough things on the table."

They're gone. Yay!

[stupidicus]

244. yep, as do the majority around here I am sure

when it comes to shameless denial of past factual errors and quite egregious and shameless criticisms of those who got it right, the rightwingers have nothing on them.

[Stardust]

221. This thread make my head hurt. nt

[TheKentuckian]

223. Good, we need a break from the pursuit of the absurd in the pursuit of the stupid.

Though before we can even get to the end of the excerpt the lame ass "Grand Bargain" stuff made an appearance.

[pragmatic_dem]

225. The only words that matter: "The president isn't definitively taking the idea off the table..."

...how fucking pragmatic of him.

[Fearless]

226. Better late than never.

[on point]

234. about time. However will believe it when he vetoes anything with it in it.

[JDPriestly]

235. The president needs to take the idea of chained CPI off the table definitively.

I read the other day that the incomes of 40% of women who are seniors are below the poverty level. That is shameful. These women earned less than men for doing the same work during their working lives. Many of them raised families or cared for their parents and also worked. Some took unpaid family leave to help their families. When they retire, their Social Security is based on what they earned especially in the final years in which they worked. The cards are stacked against women from their first day in the workplace through their last day drawing Social Security. Chained CPI would really hurt women. Don't agree to it, Mr. President.

I'm glad you have taken it our of the budget for the moment. Don't put it back in. Don't let the Republicans and Pete Peterson badger into putting it back in.

Don't hurt women who are retired any more than they have already been hurt.

[Overseas]

238. K&R. Yes please!

[L0oniX]

239. "Obama was also facing a rebellion among liberals" Just liberals??? Yea right!

Everyone knows seniors are liberal. I mean ...who in the hell are the progressives? or... yea sure ...thanks for letting us know that it was only the liberals who were trying to protect seniors. If you are a Dem then you must be a centrist, 3rd way, corporatist .........or a liberal. See ...they don't say that a large portion of the 99% or a large percentage of Dems do not want SS on the budget table. Word choice is important.