General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Chained CPI off the table. [View all]stupidicus
(2,570 posts)CPI was needlessly put on the deficit cutting table
As any schoolchild of reasonable intelligence could easily discern, that if it was taken off the table, the most plausible explanation is that it didn't pass the smell test, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/fiscal-cliff-social-security-chained-cpi_n_2251903.html as buffalo chips rarely do except to the willfully olfactory sense-challenged.
His willingness alone to put it one the table is ammo the rightwingnuts can use, and they likely will, much as they used the threat in 2010 to their benefit with the gray vote -- the most gullible voting block of the single-issue kind. Apparently you think it was just stupid Tea Baggers that bought into the rightwingnut noise on the matter -- their hypocrisy on the matter notwithstanding
In the 2010 election, when purported threats to the Medicare program related to Democratic policy initiatives had been prominent during the 18 months prior to the election, this pattern changed. For instance, voters aged 65 and olderthe age group eligible for Medicaregave 59% of their votes to Republican candidates compared with only 51% of those aged 6064. Other data from the 2010 election reinforce this simple indication that voters in the oldest age group were concerned about the future of the Medicare program.http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763629
That's what I called/predicted in 2009 when BHO first made a lot of noise about "reforms".
But its the signature program that makes the American people think of the Democrats as Santa Claus. And the number one priority of the Republican strategists is to get a Democratic President to take a shot at Santa Claus. Since FDR brought us Social Security not one single Democratic president has ever, in the history of the republic, suggested shooting or even nicking the Social Security Santa Claus. Until Obama. http://www.alternet.org/economy/explaining-pure-cruelty-obamas-gimmick-chained-cpi-simple-language
but only because BC's lust derailed his efforts to change things http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich
and you'd better hope I'm "wrong", because this is the most likely scenario of the buffalo chip/turd-covered slippery slope it'll be
President Obama has brought into his negotiations with Republicans an offer to cut more out of Social Security than he would cut out of the bloated Pentagon budget. So hes supporting the Republicans Santa Claus and shooting the Democrats Santa Claus. And, like with Clinton and welfare, this will just be the beginning, once the first cut is made. Eventually, the bloody carcass of Social Security will be swept up by right-wing cons like Peterson, Simpson, and Bowles, and handed over with a bow and a ribbon to the billionaires on Wall Street.
meanwhile, my initial point remains wholly intact and unrebutted
Who's "mumbling" here? Not me, but apparently you struggle either with plain and simple english, or formulating, composing, posting, and defending a valid argument.
I run into that a lot around here.
Let them do what work -- putting crap on the table or the actual law books that have no business there, like chained-cpi, warrantless wiretapping, etc, etc, etc?
You're free to be an apologist for or an enabler of anything you want, but your condescension in this case, or even more abrasive ridicule and scorn won't obscure your guilt of it, it just leaves those like me deciding whether to be amused, disgusted, or both, by it.
I think BHO should put the repeal of the National Labor Relations Act on the table too, and make the at-wiill doctrine the law of the land again. That would at least be part of the rightwingnut fascists wet dream, no? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2012/12/14/federal-unions-sacrifices-for-deficit-reduction-took-toll-in-best-places-to-work-survey/
Then they could silence voices they've long wanted silenced, kinda like some have wanted all those BHO critizers around here, no?