HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Why President Obama isn't...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:06 PM

Why President Obama isn't caving

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/why-obama-isnt-caving-85443.html



President Barack Obama’s 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 doesn’t mean Obama won’t 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 he’s determined to squeeze it out of Republicans. He believes he owes that to the people who voted for him.

141 replies, 13792 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 141 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why President Obama isn't caving (Original post)
steve2470 Dec 2012 OP
otherone Dec 2012 #1
ywcachieve Dec 2012 #36
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #119
ywcachieve Dec 2012 #135
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #137
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #2
doc03 Dec 2012 #3
Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #45
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #61
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #87
Dustlawyer Dec 2012 #103
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #130
Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #106
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #131
Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #136
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #138
doc03 Dec 2012 #127
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #132
doc03 Dec 2012 #141
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #53
Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #82
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #91
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #88
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #94
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #124
JustAnotherGen Dec 2012 #126
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #128
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #56
ablamj Dec 2012 #60
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #79
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #89
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #57
freshwest Dec 2012 #69
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #90
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #95
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #133
april Dec 2012 #70
supercats Dec 2012 #73
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #4
11 Bravo Dec 2012 #8
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #11
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #109
Chan790 Dec 2012 #42
Skraxx Dec 2012 #113
Chan790 Dec 2012 #114
Skraxx Dec 2012 #116
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #49
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #51
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #65
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #75
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #100
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #104
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #108
Skraxx Dec 2012 #117
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #92
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #101
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #54
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #55
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #66
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #74
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #102
MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #105
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #107
craigmatic Dec 2012 #5
freshwest Dec 2012 #6
sheshe2 Dec 2012 #17
freshwest Dec 2012 #24
sheshe2 Dec 2012 #27
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #58
Shuhered Dec 2012 #7
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #9
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #16
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #22
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #25
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #93
Skraxx Dec 2012 #122
RC Dec 2012 #80
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #23
John2 Dec 2012 #31
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #43
newfie11 Dec 2012 #32
theaocp Dec 2012 #40
Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #46
DonCoquixote Dec 2012 #10
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #12
bvar22 Dec 2012 #13
A Simple Game Dec 2012 #18
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #21
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #30
SHRED Dec 2012 #26
newfie11 Dec 2012 #33
pandr32 Dec 2012 #47
woo me with science Dec 2012 #64
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #77
Hotler Dec 2012 #125
Chakab Dec 2012 #14
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #67
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #15
theaocp Dec 2012 #41
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #81
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #19
bvar22 Dec 2012 #139
steve2470 Dec 2012 #140
Spryguy Dec 2012 #20
fredamae Dec 2012 #52
DJ13 Dec 2012 #28
jerseyjack Dec 2012 #29
dmosh42 Dec 2012 #34
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #38
davidpdx Dec 2012 #35
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #37
newfie11 Dec 2012 #39
Skraxx Dec 2012 #44
NorthCarolina Dec 2012 #48
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #50
Skraxx Dec 2012 #59
SugarShack Dec 2012 #62
Skraxx Dec 2012 #72
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #84
Skraxx Dec 2012 #85
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #96
Skraxx Dec 2012 #97
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #63
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #68
Skraxx Dec 2012 #71
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #83
Skraxx Dec 2012 #86
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #98
Skraxx Dec 2012 #99
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #110
Skraxx Dec 2012 #112
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #115
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #121
Skraxx Dec 2012 #123
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #129
Skraxx Dec 2012 #134
patrice Dec 2012 #76
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #78
Hulk Dec 2012 #111
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #118
Number23 Dec 2012 #120

Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:15 PM

1. I sure hope he doesn't disappoint

Time alone, time will tell..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otherone (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:27 AM

36. Some people cannot be pleased, no matter what the President does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:37 PM

119. His previous deals gave away too much

for little in return. Lets hope the OP is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #119)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:35 AM

135. He will never please you all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #135)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:50 AM

137. "You all"

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:18 PM

2. "That doesn’t mean Obama won’t eventually compromise ..." Agreed. It doesn't mean that at all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:24 PM

3. He put SS on the table and if he goes through with the

chained CPI, he caved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:32 AM

45. agreed

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:32 PM

61. And he kept his word

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:07 PM

87. Yes, the President is caving or selling us out, why I don't know but

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:22 PM

103. He is Wall Steet! All his financial guys came from there, and will go back there when their time is

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:32 AM

130. That's *your* interpretation: caving. It's also the Purist-Ideologues' claim, but not

what people who can actually see through the panic, think. People like Paul Krugman:

"Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesn’t 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:38 PM

106. What is the basis for your argument?

The AARP says differently. See post below.


And can you make your argument without personal attacks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:34 AM

131. Sure I can.

And without personal attacks: Paul Krugman.

I've also explained it in my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #131)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:44 AM

136. Do you have a link?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:40 AM

138. Are you still interested in the link?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:19 PM

127. If they use the chained CPI it is a cut. If they want to fix SS

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #127)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:40 AM

132. Let's remember and be clear: if we do NOTHING, there will be a 22% CUT in 2035. Period.

If they want to fix SS raise the cutoff limit to $250,000


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #132)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:01 PM

141. Apparently you don't live on SS, if you did you

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:09 PM

53. Correction ...

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:54 PM

82. I hope you are correct--but I believe the AARP


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:26 PM

91. We, simply can't ...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:11 PM

88. I think you're peeing into the wind. Almost eveyone thinks he's caving and they should voice it

 

loudly while there's still time to make a difference. You are not helping by rolling over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:39 PM

94. I'm not rolling over ...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:47 PM

124. You're not making any difference and even more, are part of the problem. Me thinks troll.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #124)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:59 PM

126. 1strong

Is no troll at DU. Disagreeing doesn't ake anyone a troll. And I agree with him on his point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #124)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:33 PM

128. So tell this troll ...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:18 PM

56. Which would you prefer,

a chained CPI or an immediate return to the previous payroll tax rates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:31 PM

60. an

immediate return to the previous payroll tax rates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:27 PM

79. As I am collecting my SS benefit,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ablamj (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:13 PM

89. "An immediate return" and lifting the income withholding cap.

 

This would make SS solvent for eternity even if the retirement age were lowered to 55, which it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:22 PM

57. Purists will never see the bigger picture because of their myopic

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:16 PM

69. Agreeing with you...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:17 PM

90. BlueCaliDem you're the "myopic purest" here. Stand up for SS doofus.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:49 PM

95. Well reasoned argument ...

How is arguing against a false program change "standing up" for anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:55 AM

133. What's an S.S. doofus?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:28 PM

70. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:57 PM

73. Exactly

Thats what I believe as wrll. No caving Mr. President!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:29 PM

4. Catfood CPI, pullback on tax rates for the wealthiest

Some would say that our President has caved massively - just not enough to get a deal.

Yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:50 PM

8. Yup. Some would say that. Over and over again. Even though the cuts have yet to happen, and ...

the tax rates have yet to be determined, "some" will continue to say it. Over and over again.
I wonder why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:09 PM

11. Imagine?!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:40 PM

109. Manny ... Is Obama going to cave and make a deal which cuts SS by the end of the year?" Yes / No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:34 AM

42. Some questions are easy to answer.

...
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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:17 PM

113. What Table Would That Be?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #113)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:19 PM

114. The table is the negotiations.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:21 PM

116. Really? There Are Currently Negotiatons Discussing SS Cuts? I Must Have Missed That, Please Provide

Evidence of these cuts being part of some legislation, or some deal or some current negotiations. I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:59 AM

49. This is it!!! Here it comes!!! Any second!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:03 PM

51. Interesting how you try to divert attention

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:45 PM

65. If I'm willing to let you make me an offer for my mint condition special edition babe ruth

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:59 PM

75. Ok, point to specific posts and let's see my moving goal posts. Nt

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:17 PM

100. Manny ... Is Obama going to cave and make a deal which cuts SS by the end of the year?" Yes / No.

Its that simple.

My prediction is no.

You are afraid to make such a prediction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:25 PM

104. WTF?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:39 PM

108. Manny ... Is Obama going to cave and make a deal which cuts SS by the end of the year?" Yes / No.

Its a simple question.

And you are afraid to answer it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:22 PM

117. Who Is This "Most of Us" Who Agree?

I don't agree. Who is the "us" of whom you speak? And how do you know they agree with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:29 PM

92. If anyone touches SS, be they Dem or Rep, that party will not win an election for decades.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #92)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:18 PM

101. Or, he's daring them to say what the GOP does not really want to say out loud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:09 PM

54. If I had a dollar for all the "wrong" prognostications by that one, I could fix the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:16 PM

55. Can you supply links to a few?

Should be pretty easy, yes?

Good luck,

Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:48 PM

66. Every DU thread predicting Obama would cave during the debt ceiling fight.

Thread after thread. Didn't happen.

And now for the last 3 weeks ... OBAMA'S GOING TO CAVE!!!!!

I count those as predictions.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:57 PM

74. Well, "Emo Progs" like me, Bernie Sanders, the Congressional Progressive

Caucus, are of the opinion that Obama did cave. Massively.

The Third Way is entitled to its (very sensible) opinion, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:20 PM

102. So Obama stands his ground, we go over the cliff, and you still claim he caved.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #102)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:27 PM

105. I said all of that?

My memory must be shot.

Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:39 PM

107. All you did was redefine "cave".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:52 PM

5. He's not caving because he won and can't run again. He owes the repubs nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:59 PM

6. As in... 'You get nothing.' We're already watching Grover squeal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:06 PM

17. I am with you and Craigmatic here.

I am blocking the rest of the noise here. Hands over ears ...singing to myself....LALALA!

Thank you Steve2470 for your post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:51 PM

24. I haz old picchur 4 dat:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:25 PM

27. OMG...Perfect!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:26 PM

58. OMG! That's so CUTE!!

I've never seen it so thank you for reposting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:33 PM

7. Mandate Electorally--He Whooped Romney

Romney is almost an obscurity now, and so soon after the election. Obama can make Boehner his beotsch and should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:02 PM

9. I guess when you volunteer FIRST, it's not technically caving

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:03 PM

16. He has to work with a Republican House

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:27 PM

22. I don't accept that excuse. SS above all things should be non-negotiable. Voluntarily offering it up

 

is unconscionable and tarnishes Obama's presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:00 PM

25. Just saying that there are going to be some concessions made that we aren't all going to be happy w/

not saying that I agree with Social Security being on the table FYI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:36 PM

93. The "fiscal cliff" is a completely GOP fabricated "crisis". So what if nothing is done,

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:08 PM

122. So You're Ok With UI running Out For Millions?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:44 PM

80. I do not except that excuse either. Social Security is not and never was a part of the debt or the

 

deficit.
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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:46 PM

23. Pre-emptive excusery

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:02 AM

31. Obama does

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:15 AM

43. ^^This!!^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:38 AM

32. But SS has nothing to do with the deficit nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:26 AM

40. The catch is

that he "needs" a deal. Why? That's on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:34 AM

46. Giving away SS for the sake of compromise tells me

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:05 PM

10. I support Obama, but

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:21 PM

12. Well Spoken. K&R

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:37 PM

13. It is a sad day for the Once Proud New Deal Party...

...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.
Solidarity99!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:07 PM

18. Nice post, and sadly so true. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:26 PM

21. If Obama weighs in strongly in favor of ANY SINGLE ONE OF THESE,

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 .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:35 PM

30. Funny you should mention 'vanity 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:16 PM

26. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:43 AM

33. That is exactly what this country needs nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:54 AM

47. Too true

We have got to stop letting Republicans frame every single issue--establishing the narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:40 PM

64. Bvar22 nails it once again.

Reccing this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:14 PM

77. Rec

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:52 PM

125. Well said. Kicking. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:47 PM

14. He already caved,

and he'll do it again next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:49 PM

67. How so?

I sense the goal posts and the entire field, moving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:58 PM

15. President Obama has worked hard to meet Republicans halfway (maybe even more)

but now it is THEIR turn to take some steps towards him and the Democrats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:28 AM

41. And why would they do that? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theaocp (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:47 PM

81. I don't think that they will- until they are so far in the minority that they don't even matter

but they should IMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:20 PM

19. Is this satire?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:25 PM

139. The President has stated that Social Security is in NO WAY responsible for the Deficit,

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.
Solidarity99!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #139)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:36 PM

140. That's a great video you found nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:25 PM

20. Fuck compromise!

 

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:06 PM

52. Yes. How many Trillions have

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:38 PM

28. with the specter of a renewed recession lingering just over the horizon

Precisely the reason cuts to our safety nets are ill advised now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:07 PM

29. How do you know all this?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:56 AM

34. My understanding is HR4310 was just passed last week, which doesn't cut anything.....

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:30 AM

38. Really, the only ones facing a cliff is Big War.

Stopping the sequester is what the real hullabaloo is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:04 AM

35. But..but..but...

He's already caved. Did you see the picture of him bowing to the Republicans at the alter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:27 AM

37. Sorry, cutting old folks safety net, while saving Big War, is a cave, IMHO.

Not to mention the SS tax cut that damages the long term solvency of SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:44 AM

39. Agreed nt

+111111111111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:23 AM

44. There Were Cuts To The Safety Net?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:56 AM

48. The Payroll Tax Reduction

that cut the employee and employer contributions to Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:01 PM

50. So people's benfits have been cut??

No actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:27 PM

59. That Cut Benefits? On What Planet?

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:33 PM

62. United States, EARTH!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SugarShack (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:53 PM

72. And Those Cuts Were.....??

I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:55 PM

84. On the table.

Which, in a negotiation, is a cave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:05 PM

85. So No Cuts Then?

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:59 PM

96. YES, he is offering up cuts to social security to the republicans in the negotiations,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:09 PM

97. Where Are These Cuts? They've Happened? Or They Are Part of Some Deal? Please, Show Them To Me

Otherwise they are only in your imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:35 PM

63. Where are the benefit cuts?

There aren't any!

I hope you now understand that you've jumped the shark on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:02 PM

68. They are on the table, they are the goal. The other goal is defending the Big War budget....





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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:52 PM

71. So You Admit There Have Not Been Any Cuts?

Just the one's you imagine, and have been imagining for years, that have never materialized.

Glad we're clear on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:54 PM

83. No, the SS tax cuts damage the long term solvency of Social Security,

on top of that, he keeps putting SS on the table.

From NPR:

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, 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:06 PM

86. So No Benefit Cuts?

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:09 PM

98. For God's sake, yes, he is offering cuts, ie, has caved already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:16 PM

99. He Is? Really? Pray Tell, I Must Have Missed Some Deal That Was Made, Please Fill Me In On All The

details of these cuts. Otherwise, they are in your imagination. Unless there is a deal or actual cuts I'm missing. Is there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:45 PM

110. They are redefining the meaning of "cave" now that they realize that Obama is not going

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #110)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:13 PM

112. I See, So Now, To Some People, Hypothetical Discussions are now Caving?

How interesting. Sounds like a thought crime! But what do I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #112)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:20 PM

115. And, if I allow you to make a bid for my babe ruth rookie card, clearly I want to give it to you.

There is no way that I simply want to find out how much you think it is worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:07 PM

121. The OP is "Obama isn't caving". The OP is not talking about a final deal, but the process.

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #121)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:11 PM

123. Well then, where did he accept cuts and cave?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:45 AM

129. Here you go, from the Washington Post, but actually, I hope your right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #129)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:38 AM

134. So Those Cuts Are Part of Some Deal?

It doesn't say, please enlighten me. Otherwise, they are only hypothetical, and therefore meaningless. Accept I guess in your imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:13 PM

76. Congress is our problem not BO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:21 PM

78. He should stick to an absolute no on chained CPI.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:57 PM

111. I've never lost faith in him....NEVER!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:27 PM

118. I knew I would see the critics pissing on President Obama

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:47 PM

120. This thread is hilarious. And sad. But mostly hilarious

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread