From the White House transcript: Obama DID include Chained CPI in negotiations.

[madfloridian]

These are the words of Jay Carney, White House spokesperson.

Jay Carney's press briefing Dec. 18

Q Yes, Jay, a lot of top Democrats on the Hill, and I think President Obama, spent the campaign season saying, let’s not touch Social Security -- it doesn’t add to the deficit; we can resolve this issue without going to that entitlement program. What is the President’s message to those lawmakers who promised constituents that Social Security would not be touched after the President now has put chain CPI on the table for Republicans?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear about one thing: The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --

Q But the Republicans --

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

If you think I am posting misinformation, feel free to correct me. I don't want a reputation like that.

[villager]

1. I won't believe it until Obama shows up on my front porch and says so in person!

Dagnabit!

[Jim Warren]

6. I'd laugh out loud

if it wasn't so damn true.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

9. I still wouldn't believe it! (n/t)

[gkhouston]

87. If he does, he'd better have some premium cat food with him.

I only eat the good stuff.

[jsr]

119. With peas or no?

[gkhouston]

131. That's dog food. Know your protein sources.

I remember that flavor. It did actually smell good.

[jberryhill]

128. "he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

[gkhouston]

133. Not making the change in the first place would be a way to accomplish that. n/t

[southern_belle]

178. +1 n/t

[madfloridian]

2. To include this is being dishonest on promises not to cut Soc. Sec.

[forestpath]

3. All I ever need to know about President Obama. He threw the vulnerable under the bus

to please Republicans.

That's what I'll think of every time I see or hear him now.

[ananda]

10. He's done that before.

..

[forestpath]

21. Yeah. Just no so blatantly and proudly, I guess.

[George II]

85. Specifics?

[gussmith]

108. Specifics

Continuing Bush tax cuts for top earners. Lack of: prosecution of credit default criminals; lack of follow up to gun control promises; lack of immigration reform. Promises unfulfilled are throwing people under the bus - not supporting Rice. Timidity or cowardice is more than occasionally.

[msanthrope]

135. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay. nt

[cui bono]

165. You sound like you think only trolls have that opinion. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. Does it not matter to you ...

that the Carney said that along with chained CPI the language will protect the vulnerable that you claim to have been thrown under the bus?

[madfloridian]

113. I am not among "most vulnerable". I want protection from it as well.

Protect the most vulnerable and not the rest of us? Why?

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. Because ...

(and I'm sure you won't like this reason) it might be necessary to protect a more vulnerable population on January 1st.

[femrap]

185. And just who

is the 'most vulnerable?' And more important, WHO decides which people are the 'most vulnerable?'

Do they weigh the person...only the skinny people? Those with no heat during the winter? The ones with 'certain' disabilities?

I think steam is starting to emanate from my ears. If this president is going to reduce the dollar amounts going to those on SS, why not just MEANS TEST IT. When the SS recipient files his/her income tax return, those with a lot of income will be taxed on that SS since they really don't need it.

Everyone earning over a specific amount...say $50,000 will be taxed on their SS. And anyone who is making over $200,000 is taxed 100% on their SS. And forget all about this 'chained cpi crap.'

I guess my idea doesn't PUNISH the elderly living on $12,000/yr. and those w/ disabilities enough.

I seriously am so pissed over him going after SS I could spit nails. I'll say it....he's not dishonest. He's a liar. And if he takes it back, I'll apologize.....but do not hold your breath.


In sum, f*ck this Cliff. And f*ck the rich. Already letting those making between $250,000 to $399,999 to keep their BUSH TAX CUTS. I think the pres thinks this is MIDDLE CLASS.

[Bake]

125. Chained CPI is a specific, known entity.

Unlike some vague, ambiguous "language that will protect."

Chained CPI is a cut, plain and simple. Is it a "slash?" Well, there we go getting into "language" again.

Bake

[forestpath]

155. I don't trust a word out of Carney's mouth.

[cui bono]

166. Not really. They said they weren't going to touch SS in the first place.

They said they were going to have a public option.

They said they were going to be the most transparent administration ever.

They said they weren't having back room deals with big pharma until they had to admit they were.

They said... they said... they said...

[jberryhill]

129. "he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

153. Sure. I believe it. Why shouldn't we all?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

152. This not the first time. And he isn't doing this alone.

[madfloridian]

4. Reliable source?

Hope so.

[marew]

5. You are correct!

There are multiple sources for this but there are some here who are in complete denial. Just wait!

[madfloridian]

7. Well, this post is dropping quickly.

So I guess it's okay that he did put it in negotiations.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

12. Well, GOBAMA! is speaking now...

so give it time.

[Skip Intro]

15. Many don't want to see what the don't want to see.

Hero-worship has trumped fact-based reality here for a while now, as I'm sure you've noticed.

[UndahCovah]

75. Sad but true

Remember how the goppies were, and many of them still are, with Sarah Palin?

Dear, dear Sarah, she could do no wrong. I recall someone telling me he would die happy if he could take a bullet for her, I kid you not!

We must NEVER, EVER allow that kind of hero worship on our side. Obama is a just a man. Men make mistakes. We need to acknowledge that fact.

[Liberalynn]

81. Very well said

A lot of denial going on.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. I guess you missed this part ...

There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

From the same transcript.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

154. So when your first belief is shattered, you have a fall-back position?

What happed to SS is off the table?

You no longer believe that, do you?

[Marr]

194. Another vague excuse for why doing a thing he promised not to do is actually not so bad.

I've seen this movie before, and the vague excuse always turns out to be solid bullshit.

[jberryhill]

130. "he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

[leftstreet]

8. NO! This can't be true. Obama is the new FDR!

DURec

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Naw. President Obama hasn't set up intern camps so he's no FDR.

[madfloridian]

11. He entered it into negotiations.

Since I have been posting about it for a couple of days, I take it personally when people say it is misinformation.

It is true.

[sabrina 1]

13. You are NOT posting misinformation. You are posting the facts. But when the facts

are inconvenient, there are people who would prefer we not talk about them.

Too bad, the whole country is talking about them and thankfully, people are organized and are contacting their Senators across the country to make sure that no Democrat will vote for this travesty.

They are being told in no uncertain terms that if they do, they will no longer be considered Democrats and will not be supported by Democrats in their next election.

I have to start calling mine, who have yet to make a definitive statement as to where they stand, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

So far I have been unable to reach them.

[madfloridian]

17. It angers me to have the truth treated with anger.

I waited about a year to start posting here again...and I am wondering now if it is worth it.

[sabrina 1]

22. That's nothing new here. Throughout the election this was the case. Any

inconvenient truth was generally called 'Obama Bashing' and people who insisted on posting the truth were hounded and attacked. Fortunately this time it didn't matter.

Because across the country Progressive Organizations joined forces with the Unions to stop any attack on SS which although they were voting for Democrats, they stated they did not trust them to protect SS and wanted to be ready.

Now they are mobilized and organized and letting Dems know that any of them who votes for the Chained CPI will no longer be regarded as a Dem and we Dems have no obligation to support them anymore.

I still haven't reached Feinstein and Boxer but will keep trying today.

[madfloridian]

150. I haven't been able to get through to Nelson.

But that's nothing new.

[Melinda]

32. Don't you dare leave again.

Please mad, don't leave again. Quite simply, it's a short list of folks who have kept me tied to DU all these years, and you're at the top. And I've missed your voice so much. Don't let the naysayers bury your messages. You are needed right here. Take breaks as needed, but don't stay away. You. Are. Needed. On. DU.

[caseymoz]

93. Don't leave again, please.

I was so pleased to see you were back.

[jberryhill]

132. "he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

[cui bono]

167. Stop spamming.

SS was supposed to be off the table according to campaign promises. Why do you still believe words?

[Marr]

195. I'd love to sell you a car.

[femrap]

188. While you're talking

to Di-Fi, please ask her about the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html

US citizens will be treated like al queda.

They're slipping this by us while everyone mourns for Newtown and is aghast at Obama going after SS when he promised not to.

SHOCK DOCTRINE IN USE!!!

Everywhere I look, I'm seeing '1984,' 'Brave New World,' and the old Soviet Union.

I do not recognize our country.

Boomers do like to protest! That's a plus in our favor!

[Autumn]

14. It just doesn't fit the narrative that some here

want to hear.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

16. Not the end of the world. nt

[cui bono]

168. No, just the end of some elderly and disabled lives.

Whatevah.

[randr]

18. Standing on common ground with Republicans is equivalent to

standing on thin ice over a lake of shit.

[coalition_unwilling]

41. OT - I want to say that's a mixed metaphor, even though

the imagery is pretty vivid

[progressoid]

19. Oh Bah. What does Jay Carney know?

[geek tragedy]

20. The key is HOW the change is implemented--if low income people are spared the effect

of the change, it's not nearly as bad as it otherwise would be.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, all they have to do is talk to the people. I trust Dean Baker and

Krugman and the rest of the Progressive Orgs, and the Unions and the SS advocacy groups all of whom are opposed to what has been laid out so far.

And can you please explain why SS is on a Deficit 'table' in the first place when it had nothing to do with the Deficit?

[geek tragedy]

51. It's on the table because Republicans control the House of Representatives.

Yes it's bad policy.

Everyone with a brain cell knows that.

But, some bad policy is going to be part of any deal, thanks to the Republican majority in the House.

[sabrina 1]

68. Democrats control the Senate and the WH. So we do not expect any bad policy

regarding SS. We expect them to tell Republicans 'there will be no deal that includes SS, period, so don't waste our time'.

It's really not hard. Republicans do it all the time.

[geek tragedy]

78. How are the Republicans doing, scorecard wise?

Repeal Obamacare: Fail.

Preserve Bush tax cuts for the wealthy: They are in a slow-motion cave on this.

Privatize Social Security--blew up in their face.

Raise Medicare Age: Off the table

[AnotherMcIntosh]

157. "Republicans control the House of Representatives" because Blue-Dog Democrats betrayed us.

It was the Blue-Dog Democrats that undermined our efforts to get Democrats that would follow Democratic principles in 2006 and 2008.

They hijacked the Party, followed big-money policies, and demanded that all of us follow them no matter what they did.

[geek tragedy]

161. We lost because it was a shitty economy, voters were pissed, and the Democrats

were the only people voters could punish/take their frustrations out on.

That, and the Democratic base didn't turn out.

[madfloridian]

142. Yes, why is it even on the table.

[madfloridian]

25. That is just not true. That is blatant spin.

It will hurt those of us who are not low income as well. There is no need for such a thing at all.

[geek tragedy]

49. See this from Greg Sargent::

However, according to an official familiar with the talks, the White House continues to insist on various ways of softening the blow of “chained CPI” that are supported by progressive economists, though the details are still unclear. The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is willing to support “chained CPI” if it is offset with a small increase in Social Security benefits for longtime beneficiaries and an exemption of of Supplemental Security Income, which is geared towards the poor and disabled. And so, a lot will depend on what the final agreement on Social Security looks like.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/18/the-morning-plum-should-progressives-accept-the-new-fiscal-cliff-deal/

Remember that this is the Republicans insisting on putting it on the table in the first place.

[madfloridian]

61. I read that.

It is trying to justify what should not even be discussed in the first place by our party.

[geek tragedy]

77. There are lots of things our party should not consider. Unfortunately, we have

to deal with a Republican majority in the House.

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. except it won't ...

There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

From the same transcript.

[madfloridian]

111. What about those who NOT most vulnerable? Middle class, etc.

[Divernan]

122. That's all you got? "most vulnerable" is entirely too vague, subjective and arbitrary.

But Obama's comfortable throwing out exact income amounts when it comes to placating the Republicans. $250,000 to start, and that gets raised to $400,000. So why can't Obama spell it out for seniors?
ANYONE concerned with protecting the most vulnerable would not only stay away from the chained cola, but improve the current formula which does not take into account the different proportions of expenses carried by ALL seniors. We're talking percentage of income spent on fuel, utilities, food, medicine and medical care. Social Security recipients are getting a 1.7% COLA for 2013. However, the formula used to calculate COLAs for Pennsylvania's House & Senate members is more generously calculated:

HARRISBURG, PA- The base salary for state lawmakers will automatically increase 2.2 percent to $83,802 effective Dec. 1, 2012.

Isn't that special? And don't forget, what meager savings we've managed to hang on to earn no effective interest from all those banks Obama bailed out. They were too big to fail; we seniors are too insignificant to survive.
Vulnerable? I'll give you vulnerable - there are precious few Americans who are not one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy, even with basic health insurance - co-pays/deductibles take a huge bite out of one's budget . The stocks I owned dropped 60% in value and stopped paying dividends in 2008 and have never regained value nor resumed dividends. My $6,000 hearing aids are now 12 years old - should have been replaced/upgraded 8 years ago. My roof is past due for replacement. I buy my reading glasses off a drugstore rack. However since my income is not at poverty level, guess I'm not "vulnerable".

[woo me with science]

26. Ooooh! The Third Way is shifting from denial to justification!

It's happening NOW!

Assaulting the elderly and betraying the fundamental promise of your campaign is not a bad thing at all! Stand by for reasons!

Everybody check your schedules!

[geek tragedy]

43. Oh bite me, your trite "third way" smear of anyone who tries to actually discuss the issue tiresome

but not so interesting as to be loathsome.

[madfloridian]

54. This WAS the plan of the Third Way, literally. I posted about it.

It didn't last long because it was not a popular thing to say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022021626

" Yesterday, the organization Third Way released a plan outlining several Social Security reform proposals meant to ensure the program's solvency over the next 75 years. The plan, called Saving Social Security, makes several fundamental changes to the program and cuts $2 in benefits for every $1 it increases taxes. The authors of the plan describe it as "savings-led" and say that by approaching Social Security reform in a progressive way, it's possible to come up with "a solvency plan that would make Franklin Roosevelt proud". The major points of the plan are summarized in the tables below:


Proposal Savings Through 2040 Portion of 75 year Budget Gap Closed

make benefits formula more progressive neutral no effect

index retirement age to longevity, reaching 70 by 2077 $1 trillion >one-third

cut payroll taxes in half for older workers unspecified modest cost

switch to chained CPI for COLAs $2 trillion ~one-third

increase payroll tax for high-income workers (with or without a FICA "donut hole" payment)

$1.2 trillion ~one-third

fully tax benefits for high-income seniors $500 billion modest improvement

means test benefits

immigration reforms (including surcharges on immigrant visas) $115 billion modest improvement
TOTAL <$5 trillion >100%

[geek tragedy]

56. Sure, and I take it as an insult to be lumped in with the third way.

But, not all chained CPI proposals are equally bad. Some are truly awful, whereas some (those that include offsetting benefit increases for those most vulnerable) are awful in a more mundane sense.

[madfloridian]

62. It is cutting Social Security. Just what Democrats should NOT do.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

158. In what way are you different from the third way?

If you are not acting in a manner similar to third-way Democrats, why would anyone mistake you for one?

[geek tragedy]

159. It is unfortunate that any kind of nuanced discussion seems to you a sign of moral depravity. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

162. You are the one that said that you are not a third-wayer. If true, in what way are you

different?

And if you are a President Obama fan, and if the Third Way is good enough for him, why isn't it for you?

[geek tragedy]

163. I think chained-CPI is a lousy idea. My preferred policy solution would

be far to the left of anything Obama has proposed.

But, I also recognize that the Republicans must sign off (at least implicitly) every single penny of federal spending, taxation, and borrowing.

So, some shitty policy is inevitable, since the bad guys do have real power. Not as much as they did 18 months ago, but real power nevertheless.

[cui bono]

170. So you're a Defeatist Third Wayer.

I see.

Seriously, there is no reason what so ever for SS to be part of this negotiation and all Obama has to do is say, no way, no how. SS doesn't add to the deficit, it's not going to be on the table. Ever.

End of story.

[geek tragedy]

179. You'd prefer Medicare or Medicaid cuts? nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

173. Your statement that "you think chained-CPI is a lousy idea" is undermined by your support of it.

[geek tragedy]

180. Except I support it only in your imagination. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

183. There must be some reason why some people think that you're a third-wayer.

[geek tragedy]

184. If you say so. nt

[jberryhill]

134. "he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

[woo me with science]

138. Exactly the scam I predicted:

Chained CPI affects much more than Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022031878


Chained CPI affects much more than Social Security. It affects everyone, every social program, every human being in this country, who is affected by the Consumer Price Index.

It is a right-wing looting, a scam, and a regressive tax increase.

Democrats don't reject changes ONLY to Social Security. We reject assaults on human beings who have already been looted and laughed at by the one percent. We must reject ALL chained CPI proposals, even the slick ones that we are told will contain protections for Social Security recipients or "the most vulnerable."

Democratic Presidents should not be assaulting the 99 percent at all. Period.

I smell Republican and Third Way game playing, the goal of which is to justify implementing a chained CPI across the board in this country, and to justify it because some sort of protection for SS recipients will be included.

Democrats do not support a chained CPI, period. Adopting a chained CPI means saying "fuck you" to the disabled, to veterans, to federal retirees, and to the 99 percent.

Don't fall for the right-wing spin. We should not even be talking about this garbage.

[cui bono]

171. Stop spamming.

[Marr]

196. It's amazing, isn't it? A mere 24 hours ago, the SAME names

were insisting he would not do such a thing, and anyone claiming otherwise was a paranoid 'far left' loon. Fast forward one short day, and they're already explaining why Obama doing the thing he promised not to do is actually not a big deal.

[leftstreet]

40. By the time Obama's done EVERYONE will be low income

DLC Third Way spin is starting to look really, really stupid

[geek tragedy]

47. Teabagger-style spin: Obama is the enemy of prosperity and wants to make everyone poor!!!

If you can't be smarter than a Teabagger, try to at least sound smarter.

[tama]

143. What is funny

is how right wing DLC Third way authoritarian followers constantly call real progressives from the left "repukes" and "teabaggers" for criticizing right wing policies of the Democratic party...

[geek tragedy]

149. Compelling fairy tale you've written there.

Goes in the fiction books along with the "Obama is the enemy of prosperity" line touted by Teabaggers and leftbaggers alike.

[tama]

177. Just a general observation of DU

Also I've been called that by people who are much much further towards right wing and authoritarian positions of my views - corporate and police state supporters and apologists.

[JDPriestly]

50. Low income people will be at the mercy of Congresses bribed by the very rich.

They could care less about low income people, especially if those low income people are of a different color, religion, area of the country than they are.

This is simply wrong. The chained CPI will result in huge cuts to Social Security, and if they use it for other programs, to those programs too. It will mean that the benefits paid to the poor from social programs will be cut back proportionately, to the same degree as the extent to which the poor themselves cut back to make ends meet. As a poor family tries to make do with less, to buy cheaper food, cheaper clothing, go barefoot for example or turn off the heat even when a child is sick, the government will reduce the benefits of that poor family because the CPI that applies to the government benefits that are helping them survive will be cut.

So as a poor family spends less, it receives less. Can you imagine how that family will try to survive after say ten to twenty years during which the new CPI is implemented?

It's really a bizarre, cruel idea.

It will be particularly difficult for married couples on Social Security when they get in their 80s or early 90s and one of them becomes seriously ill and has to have expensive medication or even go to a nursing home. The other, healthy spouse will have to survive on his or her reduced Social Security benefit. It could be reduced by as much as a thousand dollars a year. There is no way that the government can make that up to a person who is very poor.

Remember, people now retiring, and those of us who retired very recently paid extra into Social Security for the Trust Fund. The Bush administration overborrowed from the fund to give tax cuts to the very rich, and now the rich don't want to repay the Trust Fund. That is the story in a nutshell.

[geek tragedy]

55. There have been proposals to offset it with increases in benefits to those

who would be most hurt by it.

It's lousy policy, the question being how lousy is it.

The poor ARE already at the mercy of the Republicans, since the Republicans control the House and need to sign off on any spending bills.

[madfloridian]

73. Yes, and now the poor will be at the mercy of Democrats.

There is no justification for this.

[duffyduff]

100. So what? They aren't in control of Congress

This garbage isn't necessary. Let the fiscal cliff happen. It's bogus bullshit anyway.

[geek tragedy]

112. They do control the House. And Medicare cuts are part of the fiscal cliff. nt

[duffyduff]

193. Doesn't matter. Obama doesn't need to kiss their ass. n/t

[femrap]

190. I don't think many DUers

understand the absolute HATRED that the rich have for The Former Middle Class, the Working Class and those in Poverty.

I've ventured into websites/blogs where they spew their hatred. It's eye-opening. But I already knew how much I was hated.

And right now at this time in history, the Rich and Greedy are taking their last breath so they are at their most dangerous and will do ANYTHING to inflict pain and misery on those less than them.

Unless you've been around the extremely wealthy, you have no idea how they HATE. I swear they pray to Lucifer on a daily basis.

But I do think they realize in a way that their days are numbered. I mean, come on....look at the number of Baby Boomers they intend to f*ck. Do you really think the Boomers are going to take that? We worked and we want our money. The rich are not going to steal it from us. We like to protest. We know civil disobedience....but they're preparing for it.....look at this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html

[cui bono]

169. OMG, why accept mediocrity and compromise when NONE is necessary?

This is just the beginning. You think SS won't get attacked again later?

No, the KEY is that SS is being touched at all in a negotiation about something it has NOTHING to do with. AND... it's being done BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR IT.

Progressives asked for it not to be touched but hell, we don't matter to Obama. All he cares about is pleasing the Republicans. He had back door deals with big pharma for ACA and had single payer advocates arrested.

Bleh.

[Sheepshank]

24. THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Narrow focus on a broader concept is a commonly employed feature of those that like to puke on Obama.

I sometimes wonder why they tend to post so frequently on a Dem site?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251264891

[madfloridian]

27. This fear of honest talk about our leaders is what scares me.

We should always be careful to monitor our leaders' action, and we should not hesitate to criticize.

[woo me with science]

33. +1 Have you noticed

the steady stream of posts here lately that seem hyperfocused on this issue of "respect"?

I can't recall ever in the history of DU seeing so many posts attempting to stir up outrage over "disrespect" of a President...whether it is someone calling him "Mr. Obama" rather than "President Obama," or yelling out a question during a news conference...

It is generally petty stuff, and creepy when considered alongside the constant drumbeat of exhortation that he should not be criticized or questioned when it comes to policy.

I think this country needs a serious reminder of why we have a President and not a king.

[Sheepshank]

34. You lead my post in a different direction altogether....

never not once have I advocated that we sit on our hand and wait benignly to be told the results of a negotiation. But to assume things that are not base in the fact or reality doesn't help either. Honest talk is one thing, the fear rhetoric is dishonest in it's intent.

Sure, let the President and the house hear loudly and frequently what we, the people want and need. That is a good thing.

[madfloridian]

44. What "fear rhetoric" did I post? Be specific.

I quoted the WH spokesperson.

[Sheepshank]

71. You provide implied misdirection, and you know it.

"Obama DID include Chained CPI in negotiations"...from your heading. You know very well it's one small portion of the whole and topic of CPI in and of itself, truly tells us very little of the nature or the direction of that discussion. You have also been informed there are several forms of cpi. One form actually increases money to the elderly CPI-E:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251264891

You try to whip up a frenzy by deliberately excluding the big picture...or even without even SOME of the bigger picture of the full negotiation, or even factual evidence of the direction of the negotiation. We don't know what they are detailing about the CPI..but you'd rather spread the 'rumor' that feeds your agenda. Lying by omission or mis-applying the direction of the discussion serves no useful service rather than to spread fear.

[madfloridian]

89. Wow, now I am "Lying by omission or mis-applying the direction of the discussion"?

That's quite an accusation.

[Sheepshank]

137. it is indeed....and not done lightly n/t

[Segami]

37. +1

[woo me with science]

53. The "shut up" meme.

is extremely disturbing.

I posted about this during the elections.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072

[Sheepshank]

74. who said shut up?

I'm reading stop spreading rumonrs. HONEST discussion and feedback to our elected officials is essential. The martyr syndrome gets old too.

[frylock]

98. check the OP. rumors have been dispelled.

[woo me with science]

28. Yes, it's about "puking on Obama"!

Seniors will be unable to afford food and shelter, but this is all about being mean to Obama!

Let's get our priorities straight, people!

[BlueCaliDem]

67. What are your priorities, Woo? I'm still not clear on that.

You saw the link in the post you've responded to yet you continue with this "cat food" meme even though it's completely false. So I ask ya . . . what is your priority?

[woo me with science]

84. Expose Third Way bullshit. That's my priority. :)

That's rich. A *special* chained CPI just for the elderly. And it's especially magical because it doesn't even exist. It is hypothetical, whereas the President's proposal, which involves a chained CPI that slashes benefits viciously over time, is real.

I see the talking points are moving toward some particularly slick bullshit like Durbin was proposing: that putting a chained CPI in place for no reason whatsoever is just hunky dory, as long as we maybe, *perhaps,* exempt Social Security from its reach...for now.

What a slick first move that would be. What the Republicans and the Third Way desperately hope people won't realize is that the chained CPI affects many, many programs, and many, many groups of vulnerable people...not just the elderly on Social Security. It is used across the government to calculate benefits and outlays for all sort of desperately needed social programs.

Fuck the disabled. Fuck veterans. Fuck federal retirees. Fuck who knows who else. The chained CPI is a regressive tax hike, and it is malignant, right-wing steaming bullshit. It harms people and loots them, which is what the right-wing, whether they are Republicans or Third Way Democrats, specializes in doing.

And none of it is necessary. It is corporate looting of the people's money, pure and simple.

I am beginning to wonder if the goal for this particular Shock Doctrine episode is twofold, and despicable: to implement the chained CPI across the board, but to find a way to spare Social Security in some way...so that the Third Way can not only fuck over millions of us and get this camel's nose under the tent, but simultaneously and outrageously claim to have been our savior by "saving" Social Security.


We are witnessing a remarkably well-planned and sinister assault here. The corporatists are very, very good at what they do...

[BlueCaliDem]

92. ...

The corportists are coming! The corporatists are coming!

Puh-lease!

Has it ever occurred to your that you might be a card-carrying member of "the third way" and not even know it? No? Think about it. Here's a prominent third-wayer . . . Jane Hamsher. She once uttered that she'd like to join forces with Sarah Palin and TeaBaggers to protest Obama (she was all in for Ron Paul and was mightily pissed off that the Obama juggernaut would run roughshod over his tiny campaign). Jane, a self-proclaimed Leftist, called Obama supporters "the dumbest motherfuckers in the world, and they don’t realize he thinks they are digging his political grave."

Now, although you've never gone as far as that, based on your anti-Obama posts and your attitude toward Obama supporters, it's clear what you think of us, isn't it? Wouldn't good ol' Jane be the perfect leader of a "third wayer"?

To date, factually, President Obama has done NOTHING, zilch, NADA to harm the vulnerable and the poor, despite hair-on-fire alarmists wailers. In fact, his policies have strengthened, expanded, and lengthened our social safety net by cutting out waste despite the howling cries from the Purists on BOTH sides of the aisle.

[MFrohike]

189. Two things

1. The claim that Obama hasn't done anything to harm the "vulnerable and the poor" is demonstrably false. The repeated refusal to deal with the causes of the financial crisis as well as the coddling of the financial sector does great harm to the vast majority of Americans. The latest refusal to actually uphold the law, in the HSBC case, is simply one more example of this. An unstable, ravenous financial sector will continue to produce crises that steadily erode the wealth of most Americans.

2. Cutting out waste? I'm curious what waste got cut. I hear about "cutting waste" from politicians all day long, but I'm almost never given real examples of it.

[BlueCaliDem]

191. Two responses to your two things

1: Hyperbolic bullshit. If you don't know what the president's done to combat the causes of the financial crisis, or actually believe that bee ess that he's been coddling the financial sector, it tells me it's either because that's what you desperately want to believe, or you don't understand how our government works. Here's a hint: the rules that once were that made the kind of financial hocus-pocus happen on Wall Street was once illegal but it was made legal by Republican CONGRESS (remember Gramm-Leach-Blilely?). To blame this president for not doing anything to fix it in the two years he had any influence in Congress, is short-sighted at best.

2: Where have you been? The cutting of waste in Medicare was touted by corporate media and the GOP as the $716 billion cut to Medicare, 'member? You'd already forgotten that? The president's Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) slashed Medicare spending by $716 billion, and simultaneously, expanded benefits under Medicare by making routine screening free of copay and closing the prescription drug benefit donut hole. The $716 billion was cut out of subsidies to private insurers (Medicare Advantage plans) instead, resulting in, get this, a growth in Medicare Advantage enrollments. Ask any senior receiving Medicare how well this is working out for them.

[MFrohike]

200. Not so fast, my friend

as Lee Corso would say.

1. The causes of the financial crisis had little to do with GBL. It kicked off with a run on the investment banks. The problem was not that commercial banks were acting like investment banks, it was that the investment banks made up almost half the size of the financial sector. When they couldn't get short-term funding because lenders saw their collateral (MBS) as worthless, they became insolvent. This wasn't a problem that could be solved by Glass-Steagall because it was never a question of mixed banking activities. The size of the players in the system and their interconnectedness has been directly ignored by the administration because it would require breaking up the banks and admitting that ever increasing efficiency is unstable.

I didn't blame the president for not fixing it, I blamed him for doing exactly the opposite. His informal pardon to the contrary, plenty of crimes were and are being committed on Wall Street. Goldman got a pass from DOJ for explicit fraud. Jamie Dimon remains unindicted for blatant Sarbanes-Oxley violations. The administration has made the choice that a dishonest, "stable" financial sector is preferable to regulation and prosecution.

2. I don't know that I would call shifting money from one area to another cutting waste. It might qualify, but it wasn't what I had imagined.

My first point still definitely stands. A conscious decision was made to refuse to enforce the law as well as to prop up the bad actors. The result will be yet more asset bubbles and loss of wealth by the middle class.

Oh, bringing up GBL was kind of funny if you remember that Summers and Geithner were two of its biggest cheerleaders and still think it was a good idea.

[BlueCaliDem]

65. Frustrating, isn't it?

I sometimes wonder the very same thing. I never knew "Democrats" could hate so much on a Democratic president especially on a Democratic MB.

Thank you for the link. It's curious that the post at that link you've provided only got 13 rec's but this misleading one already has 29 and it was just posted!

[madfloridian]

96. You say the WH transcript has misleading info. I give up.

This is just amazing the lengths people will go to to deny that it is indeed on the negotiating table.

[cui bono]

172. I always wonder why the Obama apologists post on a Dem site.

It's not as if he's fighting for the party's platform or acting like a Dem.

[JDPriestly]

29. If they change the CPI, it means that they do not think that our economy will ever recover

well enough to have serious inflation.

This is a horrible development.

We should be taxing all imports.

The only people who benefit from "free" trade for manufactured goods are the extremely wealthy who invest large sums of money in factories overseas.

Free trade is an incentive for people in other countries to exploit the poor and ruin their environment. And free trade means lower wages and a declining standard of living for Americans.

The only people who profit from free trade are those who are rich enough to have huge holdings in developing nations and accounts in tax havens in which to hide their foreign earnings.

Those really cheap cell phones and other electronic gear that we buy because we can't get them made in the US -- if we had to pay import taxes on them, we would be in a better position to pay our debts. The problems are not Social Security or food stamps. The problems are unemployment and ever lower wages.

The president needs to get the courage to stand up to the rich who flatter and surround him.

Doesn't he understand that his own daughters will eventually have to fend for themselves in a country that his wealth-oriented economic policies are making poorer and poorer?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

160. Agreed. That is exactly what they are thinking.

[dawg]

30. Just words on a page. Did Obama type them himself?

If not, then they *don't* count!

Why do you belive the MSM lies?

[jeff47]

31. I wish the press was clever enough to ask which Chained CPI.

The CPI is not a good metric to base Social Security benefits on. The elderly have completely different buying habits compared to the average consumer. And this has been a problem for decades, which is why Congress occasionally tweaks the Social Security formulas.

There's another index, CPI-E, which is based on the typical buying habits of those over 62. It would be much better to switch to that.

Chained CPI produces all the doomsday articles we've seen.

Chained CPI-E would mean this year's Social Security payments would have gone up more. Where they go in the future would be more dependent on whether or not we can reign in medical costs.

[Sheepshank]

38. CPI-E for the elderly INCREASES their bennies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251264891

[Oilwellian]

174. Oh my stars!

Well we can't have that!

slurp

[mac56]

48. this

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. There is only one chained CPI at present

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates official price indexes for two population groups. One is the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), which represents the spending habits of about 88 percent of the population of the United States.(1) The other is the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), a subset of the CPI-U population, which represents about 29 percent of the U.S. population.

BLS also calculates an experimental Consumer Price Index by using households whose reference person or spouse is 62 years of age or older. Commonly called the CPI for the elderly, or CPI-E, this experimental price index rose 142.8 percent from December 1982 to December 2011, compared with increases of 131.2 percent and 126.7 percent for the CPI-U and CPI-W, respectively. These figures translate into average annual increases of 3.1 percent for the CPI-E and 2.9 percent for both the CPI-U and CPI-W.(2)

Notes:
(1) The Chained CPI for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U), which BLS began publishing in August 2002, with data back to January 2000, also represents the urban population. The prices used in the C-CPI-U are the same as those used to produce the CPI-U, but the C-CPI-U uses a different formula and different weights to combine basic indexes.

(2) For more comparisons of the CPI-E, CPI-U, and CPI-W, see Kenneth J. Stewart, "The experimental consumer price index for elderly Americans (CPI-E): 1982–2007," Monthly Labor Review, April 2008, pp. 19–24, http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/04/art2full.pdf .

http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume2_number15/cpi_2_15.htm

[jeff47]

58. And since we're changing the law, we can convert it from experimental to what is used. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Which wouldn't make it chained

You wished they'd ask "which chained CPI", but there is only one - the Chained CPI for Urban Consumers.

We could say "we'll calculate a chained CPI for the Elderly", but the press would not look 'clever' asking if they meant an index which has not yet been created.

[dennis4868]

35. Key thing from Carney is:

"as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change. "

[madfloridian]

42. That is just happy talk from Carney.

This will hurt not only the most vulnerable, it will hurt us all. Since when did Democrats leave out the middle classes from consideration?

[dennis4868]

99. Of course you call it happy talk

bec otherwise you would not be able to bitch about this...so you have to ignore it and call it happy talk...WTF?

[KoKo]

60. And how would the President do that when he relies on Congress to make all the

decisions. Do you trust that whatever he thinks he could exempt wouldn't be over ruled by the Repugs along with Blue Dog Dems who vote with them every time?

How would he make sure that the most vulnerable are exempted from this change?

Besides SS is not a contributor to the Deficit so it shouldn't be "On the Table" offered to the Repugs as compromise in the first place.

[Rex]

80. What KoKo just said.

+1

[plethoro]

36. That's as close to stone as we're going to get prior to the signing, should that occur. Funny,

but if this goes through, the resultant attacks against Obama will be a bipartisan effort. Nice to see you again. I talk to my brother in Safety Harbor every other day now.

[John2]

39. Well, If he

just use it for wealthy recipients of Social Security, but I still think it is wrong to cut their benefits. Just so the poor and middle class get exempted. Is that the same as means testing?

[colorado_ufo]

45. "And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI."

Soooo . . . why not just include an EXCEPTION or EXEMPTION for Social Security? But, they should not even have to do this! They have NO RIGHT to include Social Security in their negotiations!

Not part of the deficit, funded separately, we all know this; even Reagan acknowedged it very directly.

[stupidicus]

46. yep, you'd think this would be common knowledge by now

and particularly to the most informed community on the "internets"

[upi402]

59. Denial is rampant here

The justification for his Republican behavior reminds me of battered wife syndrome on the part of most DUers.

[stupidicus]

148. good/apt analogy

I've grown quite accustomed to it in the last decade or so as a dem voter and critic.

This is just another in a long list of things that rightwingers do not have a monopoly on.

Many of us tried to discuss these kinda things pre-election, and you can no doubt imagine how that went.

I'd be willing to forego any "I told you so's" for now, but sadly that would first require that they've finally "gottin it", which they haven't as you rightly noted.

[markpkessinger]

64. Thank you! The level of denial around here is truly something to behold! n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

66. Well, I guess today is the day that we once again learn that there is no Santa Claus.

[upi402]

69. No pony?

Rahm has my pony and invested in a glue factory.

just sayin'

[madfloridian]

70. Words from Tom Harkin, video clip. Dangers of chained cpi

Maybe he is respected here enough to be heard.

[KoKo]

72. "MF" and "Sabrina 1" Progressive Dems are organized in fighting back

which is heartening to me that there's a coordinated push back with a barrage of articles explaining why the "Chained CPI" is so disastrous and even putting SS on the table for negotiations is wrong.

I have a post up about it, in case you missed it which has the Tweets of prominent Progressive Dems speaking out plus a couple of good articles :

Here's the title and link:

Mr. President, do "OUR DEAL--NOT YOURS!" Clear Messages from the Progressive Democratic Community


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022028547

[madfloridian]

76. I did miss that post.

Thanks for the link.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

79. Thanks for posting some concrete information

Now then. For all the DU'ers who are following these talks please don't think an offer is an agreed up part of the bargain. They are negotiating. We don't know what the end result will be so let's take a deep breath and remember, your elected representatives have to vote on this. If you don't like it, deluge their phones and offices with calls, letters and visits.
Until such time, I am waiting to see what comes out of this as opposed to hyper-ventilating about what might be. I mean nothing personal to any such persons currently hyper-ventilating.

[rtracey]

82. Calm down

It has to pass the Senate.... Dems in the senate need to be reelected......

[madfloridian]

88. Not my point.

My point is how the truth is treated here now.

[George II]

83. From what I see, the Republicans put it on the table....

....and Obama did not immediately and unequivocably rule it out. That does not mean that it will wind up being in the final negotiated agreement. A big difference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. POTUS said such on my tv

Is that reliable enough.

[abelenkpe]

90. We should be talking about raising the cap on ss not chained cpi. nt

[ChiciB1]

91. I'm Not Even Sure I UNDERSTAND What This Mean To Me.

My husband & I are on SS already, but don't totally understand what this means to us. From what I'm reading this ISN'T a good deal!

[DireStrike]

94. The CPI determines how SS tries to keep up with inflation

Chained CPI makes it worse.

[madfloridian]

95. Here's Bernie Sanders' read on it in graph form.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022024868

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. We're not just going to screw you in SS but in every program that uses CPI.

[msanthrope]

101. Madfloridian, as a former teacher, can you calculate for us, in real dollars, how much your

current monthly check would change?

I think that would be helpful to the debate---and forgive me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that you are getting SS. I will gladly edit if I am wrong.

[madfloridian]

103. No, I was not a math or economics teacher. Not in my job description.

And since there was so much denial that Obama had put it on the table for negotiation, I posted the transcript which said he did.

And I think you are probably being a little insulting to my intelligence.

[msanthrope]

127. It's an insult to assume you can do math? I think the calculation part is pretty simple---

How much is your check?

How much is the projected COLA for the coming FY?

How would that compare to the CPI?

Would you lose actual dollars, and what would that represent to you in terms of your standard of living?

I think you shoud tell us the actual impact to you. It would make your case if you could identify, in real amounts, what this would cost Florida seniors.

[madfloridian]

144. That really is a sad way to present a case.

[neverforget]

182. It's just a technical change so it's all cool. Promise

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/39244-white-house-press-briefing-by-jay-carney-december-18-2012.html

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. Apparently it is enough to pay for wars of choice on credit and private planes for

public servants.

[msanthrope]

124. I think an actual calculation would be helpful to bring home the impact on seniors....

For example, if madflo's SS check was going to be cut 'x' amount, it might be helpful to say "'x' amount represents a prescription, or a week's worth of groceries."

I mean, I agree with your rhetoric in general, but budget discussions generally work best with numbers.

[intaglio]

102. OK, what part of "negotiation" don't you understand?

and what part of

he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

confuses you?

[madfloridian]

107. Will he exempt middle class from becoming most vulnerable?

After 76,791 posts and 10 years here, I bear many scars. Hard to hurt my feelings.

But feel free if you must.

[ProSense]

105. Here's what I get:

MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear about one thing: The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --

Q But the Republicans --

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

It's outrageous that Social Security is being included in these negotiations, but Carney seems to be stressing that the Republicans brought this to the table. Why the President went there is anyone's guess. The fact is Boehner was never going to agree to the proposal.

In any case, this outrages has been sparked, more so than when Republicans were pushing it. No one wants, not the American people, not the AARP, not the unions. The whole thing is unnecessary and absurd.

They're negotiating based on deficit reduction, and going in the opposite direction of the largest proposal, the President $1.6 trillion. In the process, they're including Social Security, a program that has nothing to do with the deficit?

This is pure: WTF?

[madfloridian]

110. Agree in part. But it's been planned a while.

The Third Way included it in their plans last year, and now it is on the table.

And it should not be there. Agreed.

Chained CPI part of the Third Way's new Social Security Plan

[ProSense]

202. It can't be said enough. n/t

[Doctor_J]

114. What' you're going to believe a right-wing rag like the WH web site?

[madfloridian]

120. .....

Ha.

[MannyGoldstein]

123. Yeah, can you believe these people?

[Doctor_J]

145. I'm not going to believe it until I hear it directly from the president!

These are just rumors!

:snicker:

[MannyGoldstein]

146. And how do we know it's the President?

Could be a robot designed to look like Obama, made by people who have nothing to do with the President whatsoever - people like Jay Carney.

[Oilwellian]

175. Spew!

[woo me with science]

187. Bwah!

[AzDar]

117. K & R &

[jsr]

118. I want that statement signed by the president himself, and certified in long form.

Carney's mouth and Obama's mouth are not the same.

[JEB]

121. Putting or allowing chained CPI on the negotiating table

is taking food off the kitchen table for many. Quit going after benefits Grandma and disabled Vets depend on and go after the fat in the corrupt bloated Defense (war) budget.

[jberryhill]

126. "he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

"he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

I just want to make sure that this part of the transcript gets posted as often as the preceding part.

[madfloridian]

139. Only those not vulnerable would suffer, and then they become vulnerable as well.

I don't see how that is a real argument.

[woo me with science]

156. What a fucking scam.

How propaganda works to change our expectations of the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022033331

[madfloridian]

136. There's a thorough, long discussion of this at HuffPost by R. J. Eskow

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-social-security-chain_b_888380.html

"Unnecessary

It bears repeating, since so many politicians want you to forget it: Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. It can't, by law. It's completely self-funded through the payroll tax (which is what makes the choice of the payroll tax for a tax 'holiday' so insidious).

What's more, the dollars involved are trivial when it comes to the budget debate. Politicians say they're looking for $4 trillion in cuts over ten years. Even if benefits did contribute to the deficit the chained CPI would only save $122 billion, a mere 2.8% of the target.

That's peanuts for them. But it's not peanuts for the average woman on Social Security. She only receives $890 per month. By the time she turns 80 this program will be taking $45 dollars out of each month's check - nearly $500 a year. Why would Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) agree to use her spending money to balance the budget? They'd help an old lady across the street -- then pick her pocket. Why?

Because that's how you show you're fiscally "serious" in today's bizarre Beltway culture. This warped "bipartisan" value system was spawned in large part with money spread around town by people like billionaire Pete Peterson. They see cuts in Social Security and other spending as a way to shrink government and keep taxes low for folks like ... well, like billionaire Pete Peterson."

[woo me with science]

186. Thank you for that link. nt

[madfloridian]

197. It's an article with good coverage, various views.

[Jakes Progress]

140. Thank you MF.

As always you bring honesty and a record of true progressivism to whatever forum in which you participate. Your contributions have been missed.

And yes, the same old sycophantish gamers are here still. If Obama issued guns to children and published everyhone's emails, these poor deluded waifs would still want to prove that it was because he had to and because it really wouldn't hurt anything. They are pointlessly pathetic. Their need to be loved by Obama is sickening. But they have that right. Just don't let their whining and poor judgement dissuade you from bringing the truth. They lack your liberal bona fides and passion for truth. Ignore them and continue to bring your powers of research and perception to DU. It needs it now more than ever.

I've been trying to stay out of this latest implementation of reagan's dream since I believed it would come after the election. Sure I voted for Obama, but I knew he was either incompetent or a 3rd way shill. Either way I fear we are as screwed here as we have been by his love for bill bennet education reforms. Shortly I will take a holiday break from DU and the news so that I can be with my family without the sadness that comes from reading about the economy, education, or politics.

Have a nice holiday, and I hope to see more of you when I come back.

[aquart]

141. He dood it.

No way in Hell am I gonna be nice about it.

[madfloridian]

147. Yes, he did.

I should be surprised. Instead I am just angry.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

151. Of course he did.

Every thing that he has done in the last four years shows that is in his nature.

[cui bono]

164. Well, let's be clear about one thing...

The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal

=============

So it's okay because, well, "they started it!!!"

naner naner naner

[madfloridian]

176. That part really bothered me. Doesn't make it acceptable.

Carney seemed to think if the Republicans did it, it might be okay.

Sometimes we should not seek common ground.

[Poll_Blind]

181. DU REC +1 nt

PB

[NashvilleLefty]

192. No, you just like to post anything that SOUND anti-Obama.

In some cases the CPI will be lower, in some cases it will be higher. Republicans like it because overall it should be lower, although that is no guarantee.

Once again, you run off at the mouth without having all the facts. Just so long as it's anti-Obama.

[madfloridian]

198. Only on education and the safety nets.

I firmly believe he does not have respect for those programs. The harm done to education the last four years can not be repaired.

[bhikkhu]

199. With implementation rules that are essentially a means-test

which is to say, if you make below a certain amount it doesn't affect your benefits, but if you have other sources of income, it does reduce your SS benefits them slightly.

I have known a lot of people over the years who have pension and investment incomes, who also get full SS benefits, but who would be agreeable to getting less if it meant strengthening the program for those who rely on SS as their only income.

I think its a good idea, and it has been argued for here for a long time!

[madfloridian]

201. I really doubt it. We get hit very hard in taxes because we have other income.

I would not be willing to accept such. We have to deduct large amounts of taxes from Soc. Sec. plus deduct much from other income for taxes.

It's a terrible idea, and I am wondering why a Democratic president would put it on the table.

[starzdust22]

203. Who Me?

I'm on Social Security disability, it along with a small pension is all the income I have. I encourage the president to no change the way my benefits are calculated (chained CPI). That's not security. As a matter of fact I have great difficulty paying for the basics of life monthly now. What we need is a better way, such as using inflation as the driver for SS increases. My medications are constantly going up in price and yes I have to choose between food and medicine from time to time. I have visited my local food bank, but I can only do so once every other month. Most the food there is really bad, way too much sugary prepacked meals and snacks.