2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy President Obama isn't caving
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/why-obama-isnt-caving-85443.htmlPresident Barack Obamas stiffening resolve during the fight over the fiscal cliff can be traced directly to the lessons he drew from his hard-won triumph of the 2012 campaign.
He whipped Republicans a second time, parried the best attacks they could muster, and is now demanding that they respect the victory, if not the man who won it. That doesnt mean Obama wont eventually compromise, especially with the specter of a renewed recession lingering just over the horizon, but his body language is a lot more combative than the kinder, gentler Obama negotiating style of yore.
His new toughness is rooted in the nature of his convincing November win over Mitt Romney. Obama was carried to the finish line by supporters after his epic flop at the Denver debate. That seeded in him a greater sense of confidence and deepened his resolve not to be rolled by a recalcitrant GOP, as he was during the bitter 2011 fight over the debt ceiling, according to interviews with staffers and friends for The End of the Line, an eBook published in collaboration between POLITICO and Random House.
After his 2008 win, he talked a lot about bipartisanship. This time hes determined to squeeze it out of Republicans. He believes he owes that to the people who voted for him.
otherone
(973 posts)Time alone, time will tell..
ywcachieve
(365 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)for little in return. Lets hope the OP is correct.
ywcachieve
(365 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I am pleased with most of what Obama has done thus far in his presidency. I am displeased with his lopsided deals with the GOP in which we got little in return.
Does this make me one of "you all?" Just curious...
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)doc03
(35,143 posts)chained CPI, he caved.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)He campaigned on the idea the SS had nothing to do with the budget and he would not touch it. It was safe under his watch.
And before the ink on the ballots was dry...he gave SS to the republicans.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)so your accusation is bullshit.
You're one of those Obama-detractors who live in a parallel world where Social Security doesn't need fixing because we're good up until 2027. But what you're missing here is, if nothing is done to strengthen Social Security, and considering how fickle some Americans are in this country, when a Republican President and a Republican Congress takes over again, they'll dust off the age old meme and toss it out there that Social Security will go bankrupt in 2027 if we don't do anything to fix it (translate: give to Wall Street).
President Obama is working to ensure that conversation never happens again by proposing the Chained CPI that will lengthen and strengthen S.S. so it cannot be used as a club against Democrats in negotiations again. Let me repeat: THERE WILL BE NO CUTS in social security benefits.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)putting SS and Medicare into the mix for no reason is (politely) called caving. Everyone knows that the SS retirement age could be lowered and SS be solvent for eternity by removing the income withholding limit. Raising the age for retirement or limiting benefits will have no effect on deficit spending because SS is not a part of the national deficit. Corporations and businesses hate paying their half of SS and consider it just another tax on them and I presume that is whom the President is pandering to. If the President messes with Social Security Democrats will not win another election for decades.
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)up! Don't give me bullshit and tell me it's flowers! There was no reason to put Chained CPI in the deal. How about the Pentagon? Neither side wants to cut the biggest waste of our tax dollars. The Pentagon has about 250 golf courses, but we must cut aid to Veterans and the elderly! We need COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM to get representative democracy back! That should be the #1 issue! It would help solve our problems and save all we need to save, where we need to save it. Please push this issue Obi-one, it's our only hope!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)what people who can actually see through the panic, think. People like Paul Krugman:
"Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesnt affect benefits immediately after retirement, which are based on your past earnings.What it does mean is that after retirement your payments grow more slowly, about 0.3 percent each year."
So once again, chained CPI is not a cut in baseline benefits in Social Security. Even Paul Krugman admits that initial benefits are determined by one's earnings, but that chained CPI would reduce the rate of growth of those benefits by about 0.3%. If you believe that such slowing of the rate of growth is a "benefit cut," you'll need to tell me that cutting the rate of growth of defense spending is a "cut" in defense spending. With a straight face. You can't do it, can you?
Also, if nothing is done, there will be a 22% benefit CUT to S.S. benefits in 2035. Hm. Which is a greater? 0.3% or 22%?
Oh, and the most vulnerable seniors are exempt from the chained CPI.
As for removing the income withholding limit, can you cite the 218 U.S. House Reps and 60 Senators, by name, who'll vote for that? No? Then why are you accusing the President of caving? Isn't Congress caving? Place the blame where it rightfully belongs: Congress. Just hope that President Obama lengthens and strengthens S.S. or we can wait until a Republican president with a Republican controlled Congress gets to do it.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The AARP says differently. See post below.
And can you make your argument without personal attacks?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)And without personal attacks: Paul Krugman.
I've also explained it in my post.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The search I did turned up Krugman's statement indicating that it was indeed a decrease in benefits to SS.
Here is my problem: 1. He promised he would not touch SS. 2. He is offering cuts. 3. There is no reason to include SS in the talks. 4. Compromise for the sake of compromise--no matter what the cost is the wrong bargain. 5. He is assisting those radicals that want to destroy the social safety net.
And: I trusted him when he said he would not touch it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Or you're not yet done ranting against President Obama?
Here's my problem with people who don't understand the realities of S.S.'s solvency . . . If Social Security is NOT strengthened through a chained CPI, the 0.3% will not happen, but a whopping 22% will hit Social Security benefits by 2035. Now, you might not care, but I'd like to know I won't get a friggin 22% CUT in my earned benefits in 2035.
1) You're correct. He should have never made that promise. But if he's going to strengthen and lengthen this program for me and mine, I won't hold that broken promise against him.
2) He IS NOT OFFERING INITIAL BENEFITS CUTS. Paul Krugman admits that initial benefits are determined by one's earnings, but that chained CPI would reduce the rate of growth of those benefits by about 0.3%. If you believe that such slowing of the rate of growth is a "benefit cut," then you'll have to be honest and say that cutting the rate of growth of defense spending is a "cut" in defense spending. Can you do it?
3) There is ample reason to include S.S. in the talks, or do you want to wait for a Republican President and a Republican Congress to? That would be one. Another would be to avoid the 22% benefits cuts in 2035. Another would be to strengthen and lengthen the Social Security trustfund for future beneficiaries (me and mine).
4) This is NO compromise, but you'd know that if you understood what was happening.
5) President Obama has not only prevented destruction of social safety programs though the Purist-Ideologues' hated Obamacare (remember those days?), but he's strengthened, lengthened, AND expanded (Medicaid), thanks to that same hated ObamaCare.
Now I ask ya, how do you figure he's "assisting those radicals who want to destroy the social safety net"? He isn't, and now, hopefully, you understand that, too.
doc03
(35,143 posts)raise the cutoff limit to $250,000. When a person reaches $250,000 the SS payroll tax will stop and the higher income tax rate kicks in. Don't give us the bullshit it is not a cut. What is it like a 5% reduction of benefits in 10 years, that's a cut. If "W" proposed it you would call it a cut be honest! Don't give us if heating oil goes up people can switch to gas, that's bullshit.
If someone is trying to live on SS alone they have already cut to the least expensive food short of cat food.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Excellent idea! Can you cite the 218 U.S. House Reps and 60 Senators who are willing to vote on that? No? Then stop dreaming. It ain't gonna happen, but what will happen is that if nothing is done before that time, social security benefits will be cut by 22% in 2035. Are you willing to have that happen to keep your sacred cow?
It's time to wake up.
And using that Duhbya example is silly. He's a Rightwing Republican and Republicans of all stars and stripes have hated and have tried to get rid of social security since its inception.
doc03
(35,143 posts)would know that it is a cut. If I didn't have a pension from my employer I would have to sell my home and move to a low income apartment. My mother received $1000 a month and had to live in a rent subsidized apartment and Medicaid. SS doesn't contribute to the deficit and it shouldn't even be included in these negotiations in the first place. Yes if it was "W" you would call it a cut. When the fiscal cliff thing is over they can negotiate a fix for SS, it has no business in these negotiations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)A chained CPI that protects the elderly and exempts some programs (i.e., S.S.I.D., Veteran Aid).
So, no ... He isn't/hasn't caved!
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/12/18/4494295/aarp-to-congress-and-the-president.html#storylink=cpy
"Adopting the chained consumer price index for Social Security benefits will take $112 billion out of the pockets of current Social Security beneficiaries in the next 10 years alone, and is neither fair nor warranted.
The Chained CPI is a stealth benefit reduction that will compound over time and cut thousands of dollars in retirement income for current beneficiaries..."
Also:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/12/18/chained-cpi-how-washington-is-likely-to-slice-social-security-b/
Why Women Could Be Most Affected
Switching to the chained CPI would be "especially painful for women," says a National Women's Law Center report, because they have longer life expectancies than men, rely more on income from Social Security and are "already more economically vulnerable." Women receive Social Security benefits three years and eight months longer than men, on average, according to the Social Security Administration.
Single black women would be especially affected, the group says, because they receive the smallest Social Security benefits, an average of $890 a month at 65. With the chained CPI, they might see their checks reduced by $45 a month at 80 and $70 a month by 90.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)discuss the chained CPI, or its effects, without including the qualifiers. The qualifers make it an entirely different model than what the commentators are warning of.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)loudly while there's still time to make a difference. You are not helping by rolling over.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm stating a fact; the people saying he is caving by suggesting a chained CPI are building a strawman by floating the false narrative that the chained CPI, without the qualifiers, is the same as the Chained CPI model, with the qualifiers.
And yelling and screaming about the former is not making a difference ... It's annoying.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)Is no troll at DU. Disagreeing doesn't ake anyone a troll. And I agree with him on his point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How arguing a patently false narrative, i.e., a chained CPI, without mentioning the various exemptions, is NOT a part of President Obama's (and Democrats, in general) problem?
The fact is, a chained CPI WITH the often ignored exemptions, is exaclty what resident Obama promised ... It strengthens SS, without harming the beneficiaries, many critics here claim to be protecting.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)a chained CPI or an immediate return to the previous payroll tax rates?
ablamj
(333 posts)immediate return to the previous payroll tax rates
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I don't feel it's fair for me to voice an opinion in this. I do notice that I received no reply from the individual to whom I addressed my question. Last year the US government had to borrow $103 billion to cover the shortfall from the payroll taxes. It borrowed an additional $57 billion to pay for the redemption of Treasury bills cashed in by the SS trust fund.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)This would make SS solvent for eternity even if the retirement age were lowered to 55, which it should be.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)perspective that's a prerequisite for being Purists. It's always "it's MY way or the HIGHway" with them.
NO ONE can deny or argue that Social Security needs fixing and strengthening. Sure, we're fine until 2027, but what happens afterward? Do we really want to wait to secure Social Security until a John Ellis Bush or any other Republican becomes president to work on "saving" Social Security, or should we trust a president who already has a track record of doing just that through his policies when it comes to our social safety net that have already strengthened and lengthened Medicare and strengthened and expanded Medicaid?
I'll put my money on the man who already has a trackrecord. I'll put my money on President Obama.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How is arguing against a false program change "standing up" for anything?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I stand strongly for Social Security and I don't want it to be CUT by 22% in 2035, so how does that make me the myopic purist?
I want it strengthened by the one President who has a track record of lengthening and strengthening two social safety programs already - President Obama.
You, apparently, are just hunky-dory with the status quo do since you believe it's all fine and dandy and S.S. doesn't need to be changed. You just want to cross that 22% CUT in social security benefits bridge when you come to it. You don't see or you don't care about the bigger picture. That's the definition of shortsightedness.
Thats what I believe as wrll. No caving Mr. President!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Some would say that our President has caved massively - just not enough to get a deal.
Yet.
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)the tax rates have yet to be determined, "some" will continue to say it. Over and over again.
I wonder why.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)People who take the President at his word.
The Progressive Caucus, Krugman, Ezra Klein and the rest of the Emo Progs should wait until it's a done deal before opening their yaps, of course.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)...
Because Obama put that stuff on the table and Obama is yet to publicly take it off the table?
WTF ever happened to "The buck stops here" and Presidents that insisted that responsibility lay only with them?
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)Was there some deal about including cuts in some legislation that I missed?
Where are these supposed cuts? Is there a deal? Is there legislation? Where are they?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The President put it in his proposal in the form of a chained CPI...if you missed the President offering a chained CPI then you were not paying attention and that is not my fault.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)Evidence of these cuts being part of some legislation, or some deal or some current negotiations. I'll wait.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)from the President's actions (which I correctly predicted BTW - although all I did was listen to what he said).
For your crowd, the goalposts seem to have moved from Obama calling for Social Security cuts, to Obama offering cuts, to Obama offering cuts in public, to Obama actually signing a bill with cuts.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)rookie card, does that mean I want you to have my mint condition special edition babe ruth card?
Perhaps, all I want to know is how much my mint condition special edition babe ruth card it is worth to YOU.
Or, maybe I hate babe ruth and that stupid mint condition special edition babe ruth card too!
As for the goal posts, I'd suggest the hair on fire folks like yourself have not only moved the goal posts, you've moved the field.
Let me explain ... you can't, in multiple threads claim Obama is about to CAVE and give Boehner everything he wants, including the SS cuts ... and then when it does not happen, claim that he WANTED TO DO IT but was not able.
Realize this ... Obama's first term is about to end and no such cuts are going to happen. Which means if Obama had LOST the 2012 election, your hair on fire declarations of impending doom would have been wrong. Obama would have been a won term President who you were SURE was going to cut SS and Medicare, and he would not have done so.
Since he won, you get 4 more years to light your hair on fire on a semi-regular basis. And because you can't make a realistic prediction, you've shifted you tactic so that you can remain outraged regardless of what actually happens. Its a win-win for you.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Its that simple.
My prediction is no.
You are afraid to make such a prediction.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As I wrote, I believe that most of us agree that Obama's already caved. Even many of your traditionally Probama brethren believe this now. I understand that your definition of caving is different: most folks prefer to take the President at his word, you do not.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Its a simple question.
And you are afraid to answer it.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)I don't agree. Who is the "us" of whom you speak? And how do you know they agree with you?
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)RepubliCONs are very careful to never utter the words Social Security, it's always "entitlements". Now we have the President taking the bait and talking about changing "chained Social Security cost of living adjustment". What a sucker play and he's negotiating with himself again. If the President does not shut this off immediately he is going to kill the Democratic party.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Should be pretty easy, yes?
Good luck,
Manny
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Thread after thread. Didn't happen.
And now for the last 3 weeks ... OBAMA'S GOING TO CAVE!!!!!
I count those as predictions.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Caucus, are of the opinion that Obama did cave. Massively.
The Third Way is entitled to its (very sensible) opinion, too.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)What you mean is that you don't care about what actually happens and you will redefine what it means to cave to match you predetermined level of outrage.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)My memory must be shot.
Oh well.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)sheshe2
(83,319 posts)I am blocking the rest of the noise here. Hands over ears ...singing to myself....LALALA!
Thank you Steve2470 for your post!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)sheshe2
(83,319 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I've never seen it so thank you for reposting.
Shuhered
(200 posts)Romney is almost an obscurity now, and so soon after the election. Obama can make Boehner his beotsch and should.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,353 posts)The reality of the situation is that he and the Democrats will have to make SOME kind of concession to get a deal. We can argue the size and scope of what we are willing to offer but, given the lunatics that he has to deal with in Boehner's House- both now AND for the next two years, we are not going to be able to walk away with everything we want scot-free, unfortunately.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)is unconscionable and tarnishes Obama's presidency.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,353 posts)not saying that I agree with Social Security being on the table FYI
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)we go back to Clinton era tax rates and the DoD budget is cut significantly. Wall St. might not like it for a week or two but it would be a great thing for this country. There is no reason for any concession. "Proud Liberal Dem" I don't think so.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)That also happens. Now. People also lose SNAP assistance. Now. Cool with you? If you were Obama, would you care about those people? Would you hypothetically consider doing something to help them NOW?
RC
(25,592 posts)Instead of Obama putting it on the table, he should just come out and say that Social Security is not part of the negotiations. So, why doesn't he?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)just what a weak and waffling president wants to hear. Up thread the KoolAid Brigade says there aren't going to be any cuts - that President Spineless is going to stand tall. Here you're telling us he's going to cave in because he has to. Congrats on surrounding the issue.
John2
(2,730 posts)not have to make any Deal when he already has one. The only Deal he should make is if it is better than the Sequestrian cuts. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be off the table. Those are not in the cuts.
It would be beneficial for both the Republicans and Democrats to extend some of the Bush taxcuts. That is compromise. It would be beneficial for both the Republicans and Democrats to curtail some of the Defense cuts for extended unemployment. That is compromise. So there is already a Deal in place which hurts both sides. It is more balanced than what is being thrown about.
People that paid for Social Security and Medicare, got money taken out of their checks, ever since they been working. They should get the interest on it too from the Government. People that paid into it, also had no choice to opt out of it. The Government should have no right to touch it or change the terms either. Part of the National Debt is owed to Social Security because the Government raided it.
The people not in Government had no choice in the matter either. The people that want to change the terms made decisions to spend money on other things, they wanted to pursue. Some of these politicians are also career politicians. A good example of the wasteful spending Congress should cut back on, is maintaining armies overseas. One example is paying for the Army of Afghanistan and building their bases. Another example would be maintaining a sizeable army in Germany. I also woinder if we pay the German Government now to occupy their land? Congress needs to be transparent and audited for every expenditure they make.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)theaocp
(4,223 posts)that he "needs" a deal. Why? That's on him.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)he got the wrong message during the election. We did not vote for compromise for the sake of it...no matter the cost.
I voted for him in part because he promised to protect SS.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)I will not pour champagne until this is finished. Sadly, a lot of the DLC Clinton types have his ear. It helps that these Third Way types make sure others cannot reach him, and sadly, it also helps that many on the farther left, while being right on many matters, simply have stopped trying to influence the political process,which is exactly what the Third Way wants.
I will gladly be wrong, especially as this is a window of time. Yes, I am afraid of a 2016 election were our best hopes for saving SS wind up being Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, or (insert DLC here), because the Blue Dogs will be much more eager to give away the store than even Obama was. There needs to be a full blown wrecking of the GOP, something that is equal to Obama pulling out the 15th amendment and saying "these debt ceiling games are NOT constitutional!", of course, even THAT is flimsey, as we all know that Tony Scalia and the gang of goons will gladly shred the constitution to help the GOP.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Take that, from one of Obama's harshest critics, but only sometimes ..
like when he allows "chained CPI" for Social Security to slither up onto
the table for "consideration" with GOP niandritals. times like that.
But I do take my hat off to your writing skills.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...when simply "not Caving" to the Republicans is celebrated as a VICTORY.
What Obama and the Democratic Party Leadership FAILED to do over the last 3 weeks
was put a Democratic Party Vision for the Future
On-The-Table.
Instead, the Whole Fucking Debate is about what the Reoublicans want to do,
and How MUCH Obama is going to let them do.
This is NOT a "VICTORY" for a President who WON in November with a MANDATE from the People.
NOW, if Obama meets Boehner 1/2 Way to Plan B,
THAT will be touted as a WIN.
WHERE is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY VISION for The FUTURE?
THAT should have been On-the Table on Day ONE, the focus of all the TV Talking Heads and the focus of the National Dialog,
NOT Boehner and Plan B.
Things like:
*Lowering the Retirement Age to 62
*Raising the CAP
*EFCA
*Stop Federal Funds to Private Universities,
and DOUBLING or TRIPLING the funding for Public Universities
*Forgiveness of Student Loans
*Stop Subsidies to Oil Corporations
*MORE regulation of Wall Street
*EXPAND Medicare
*MASSIVE Jobs Programs, a la Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
*Medicare? allow Medicare to negotiate prices with Drug Companies
*Transaction Taxes for Stock Trades
*VAT Taxes or 15% Tariffs for Imported Manufactured Goods (like Europe)
*Fair Competition Regulations (Sherman Act)
that let Mom & Pop (small locally owned businesses) compete with WalMart
(Big Boxes) on a level playing field
*Not JUST let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, but go back to the Pre-Reagan Tax Rates
ALL that and MORE should have been put On-the-Table on DAY ONE.
THEN say to Boehner and the Republicans....
"OK. NOW lets talk compromise."
Those are just a few.
We don't have to get ALL of them,
or ANY of them.
But, as a Party, we DO need to give the American People an IDEA of WHAT the Democratic Party STANDS for.
THAT should be what America is talking about.
Boehner and the Republicans were very successful at putting their vision in front of the American people,
and having THAT as the focus of the national discussion for over 4 weeks.
Does ANYONE here KNOW what the Democratic Vision is?
...besides NOT letting Boehner have every-fucking-thing he asked for?
...besides NOT being quite as bad as the Republicans?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)it will be some sort of miracle. This piece reminds me of one of William Pitt's vanity posts, except that it's in a right-wing web site instead of DU. I will tip my hat to the PTB for a masterful propaganda campaign. Frankly it makes me .
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)when it seems the only reason you post here is to see your own name in print. It's not like you ever have anything substantive to say - because you never do.
And yet you find it necessary to say the same absolute nothing - over, and over, and over.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)We have got to stop letting Republicans frame every single issue--establishing the narrative.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Reccing this post.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Hotler
(11,353 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)and he'll do it again next year.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I sense the goal posts and the entire field, moving.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,353 posts)but now it is THEIR turn to take some steps towards him and the Democrats!
theaocp
(4,223 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,353 posts)but they should IMHO
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He offered two different cuts (raising the age, chained CPI). Maybe it's not caving if that's what he wants. When is he going to speak in public AGAINST ANY CUTS? When is he going to pardon Don Siegelmann, and investigate Rove for a political prosecution? When is he going to come out in favor of some gun control, and against Wayne LaPierre?
Just what we need, more fantasy. At least it's from a right-wing rag.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and that he will NOT entertain ANY discussion of cuts to Social Security
in ANY fashion.
He was VERY firm,
and left NO wiggle room.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
steve2470
(37,456 posts)Spryguy
(120 posts)Don't give those repigs a single inch. The Democrats dictate the new year, and if the pigs don't like it we lay the blame at their feet and sweep the rest of them from office!
fredamae
(4,458 posts)we, the people Already sacrificed and currently No one gives us any credit for this debt saddled upon us...and today we are Still being given the same old talking points: "Everybody has to suffer a bit of pain and it's going to be rough". BS-We've already given all we can and the 2%? What exactly have the 2% Actually put on the table again?
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Precisely the reason cuts to our safety nets are ill advised now.
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)dmosh42
(2,217 posts)on the defense appropriations(633 billion), and only has to be signed by Obama. That was supposed to be negotiable if I recall correctly? Didn't happen, and if he signs that it will be a definite cave.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Stopping the sequester is what the real hullabaloo is over.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)He's already caved. Did you see the picture of him bowing to the Republicans at the alter?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Not to mention the SS tax cut that damages the long term solvency of SS.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)+111111111111
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)Pray tell, when did that happen? Last time I checked we saw the largest expansion of government services since LBJ and no cuts to SS or M/M. At all. Period.
Please provide evidence of cuts.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)that cut the employee and employer contributions to Social Security.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)No actually.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)n/t
SugarShack
(1,635 posts)Skraxx
(2,964 posts)I'll wait.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Which, in a negotiation, is a cave.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)Got it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)that is a cave.
The OP is "Why President Obama isn't caving" (in the Fiscal Bluff negotiations), every time he offer sup cuts to Social Security, it is a cave.
Make sense?
So, yes, he is offering cuts in SS.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)Otherwise they are only in your imagination.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)There aren't any!
I hope you now understand that you've jumped the shark on this one.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/the-incredible-shrinking-stimulus/)
Call the White House 202-456-1111, and your rep (202) 224-3121 (opens TH 12/27)!
Tell them no cuts to Social Security, it does not add one nickel to the deficit!
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)Just the one's you imagine, and have been imagining for years, that have never materialized.
Glad we're clear on that.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)on top of that, he keeps putting SS on the table.
President Obama put Congress on notice Tuesday in a speech in Osawatomie, Kan.
He said that unless a temporary payroll tax cut is extended this month, 160 million Americans would see their taxes go up next year by an average of $1,000. But there's concern on both sides of the political aisle that the payroll tax holiday might be undermining the solvency of Social Security.
Fact No. 1: Last year, for the first time in its 75-year history, Social Security took in less money than it paid out.
Fact No. 2: This year, the first of the baby boomers reached retirement age and began collecting Social Security benefits.
Fact No. 3: The payroll tax holiday that Congress approved a year ago reduced Social Security's revenues this year by $105 billion.
"Getting rid of the way we fund Social Security through the payroll tax is a dangerous idea," says Lamar Alexander, the Senate's No. 3 Republican. "Taking money from Social Security funding is a long-term raid on solvency of Social Security."
It's not just Republicans raising red flags about Social Security, either. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats, says he agrees with Obama that middle-class families and the working poor need tax relief to weather tough economic times.
"My concern is diverting hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund into that immediate tax relief," Sanders says. "So I would love to see tax relief, but done in a different way."
Charles Blahous, whom Obama appointed last year to be one of the six trustees of Social Security and Medicare, thinks it's a far greater danger than most people anticipate. He too says the payroll tax break might be harming Social Security's long-term solvency.
"I mean, I'm a Republican and I'm a conservative, and if you were to ask me at a first approximation, do I want lower taxes or higher taxes, then obviously I want lower taxes," Blahous says. "The problem here is that I'm also a public Social Security trustee, and so I'm honor-bound to identify when this causes a change or a difficulty for the Social Security program, which it does."
That's because Social Security has long been considered self-financing and thus politically immune from budget cuts. But that could change, Blahous says, now that employees are no longer paying their full share into Social Security because of the payroll tax holiday.
"This could be the beginning of the end of the idea that this is an earned benefit, [and] where benefits enjoy a certain amount of political protection because of a notion that they have been paid for in the past by the beneficiaries," he says.
There's anxiety among Democrats as well about the prospect of prolonging the payroll tax cut. Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works, a Washington-based advocacy group, says she's been alarmed to see a Democratic administration dipping into Social Security's revenue stream to stimulate the economy.
"Democrats were the ones that created Social Security and the ones that were the strongest champions over its 76 years," Altman says. "So to have a Democratic president proposing to undo the dedicated revenue ... it's a fundamental change that supporters of the program, I think, should oppose."
Altman worries the payroll tax cut has become so popular it will be hard to end it, and that's one reason why she opposed it in the first place.
"Many of us at the time said that it's no way this is just going to last one year. And sure enough, we're back now talking about expanding it," she says.
Some lawmakers do say the tax break is worrisome, including Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
"I think one more year should be about the limit," Whitehouse says, "because of the nature of Social Security."
A program that, until now, has always paid its way.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143241709/how-payroll-tax-cut-affects-social-securitys-future
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)Got it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Skraxx
(2,964 posts)details of these cuts. Otherwise, they are in your imagination. Unless there is a deal or actual cuts I'm missing. Is there?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)to make the deal that they were absolutely positive that he would make.
Caving no longer means making a deal in which SS gets cut. That was the original definition. Obama was going to cave and cut SS.
Its not going to happen. So now ...
Caving means not making a deal which cuts SS, but not doing so with enough bluster. See Obama needed to flip the table over and scream "No SS cuts", and THEN not make the deal that he didn't make.
See ... makes total sense.
Not.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)How interesting. Sounds like a thought crime! But what do I know.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)There is no way that I simply want to find out how much you think it is worth.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Meaning, in the process of caving. Since there is no way SS cuts should ever have been on the table, then yes he is caving.
Skraxx
(2,964 posts)He's in the process of caving now? So he's currently including cuts in some deal? Or current negotiations? Where? I missed that. Please enlighten me.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Skraxx
(2,964 posts)It doesn't say, please enlighten me. Otherwise, they are only hypothetical, and therefore meaningless. Accept I guess in your imagination.
patrice
(47,992 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is the proverbial slippery slope.
It will do long-term damage to our economy and many of us.
There is no reason and no excuse for cutting Social Security, not in any way.
Our Social Security program is very limited and funded from taxes paid expressly to fund it.
It has nothing to do with our deficit.
Our Social Security system is not at all like the European ones. They are far more generous.
Let's collect taxes from people like the Romneys instead of cutting the lifeline of the elderly.
A deduction for a show horse?? Come on. That's a hobby, not a legitimate business. I don't care how many times she breeds that horse. It is a hobby and should not be a tax deduction.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)Amid all this bellowing I read on the DU threads, I still believe this man is trying his damned hardest; and this time I expect he'll deliver even better for the poor and middle class in this country.
We didn't get everything we wanted in his first term, and we won't get everything we want in his second term either. That's not the way it works, friends. We have to give something to get what is best for the America we envision.
All the posts and news about giving up Social Security cost of living benefits "is in the air", and nothing more, until it's a done deal. If it does come up, then I truly expect something to rectify it in the near future. This man is there for YOU and ME, and if we are going to cave into frustrated anger each time we read some crap on these threads or in the news, we are only strengthening the hand of the repuKKKes. He knows what we expect, and he has to work with the teajadists and the repuKKKes to make a deal. It might mean giving on something; even something as despicable as the seniors; but I don't expect that, and I would expect any sacrifice by those UNABLE to sacrifice will be compensated.
Have a little faith. Just thank your lucky star this man won the White House. We could be swimming in shit up to our eyeballs right now had the used-car-salesman won.
loyalkydem
(1,678 posts)harp on him EVERY chance they get and there the reason why we're in this mess. Had they voted in 2010 we would not be dealing with this crap now.
Number23
(24,544 posts)The screams of "hE's CaVED!!1" from the usual folks are followed by post after post after post asking "how?" and "why?" to which there is no answer save for a laughably idiotic post with half a dozen high fives that has picked the goal posts up and thrown them out of the stadium as it strives to assert that now "NOT caving is viewed as a Democratic triumph" and how even this shows how Obama is eeeeevil in some such meaningless, mindless way.
I'll file this thread away as reason #1498 for why some of the posters here need to be removed from the Internet for their own safety.