Especially in certain forums on this site.....

who is there to believe. and our interpretation is not always or even often correct, especially dealing with the president.

I do understand trying to figure out what is going on. We have to do some of that, but there is a problem with taking any of it too seriously. You can't forget that we're all just speculating and have to take it as such.

entertain the possibility of the chained CPI? I was surprised and pleased when I heard that, since I'd been led to believe (probably on DU) that it was essentially a done deal.

Don't know if that was the stand just for this stop-gap measure, or if that will be the stance when they get down to the REAL deal.

I hear stuff like this (chained CPI on the table) and I find that I'm hopeful it isn't so, but aware that many times -- not all -- it is.

We won't know until we know, and you have the right attitude.

something and the interpretation is IT IS ON THE TABLE. and reality that i learn later is that is not what or all of what he said and he was saying something else.

the thing i have learned over the last 4 yrs is there has been enough standing ground that i have learned not to take what is happening on du as fact. and i generally do not go this far in my statements cause i have no wish to argue back and forth.

it. He HAS to say stuff like that to get the other side to come TO the table. We, who consider ourselves so politically savvy, too often take what he says as gospel rather than what it is -- just politics.

maybe that is a better way of saying it. i know he has said things knowing damn well it is not going to happen cause the repugs wont allow it.

like me saying to sons, if you get straight A's i will buy you a car.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

believe the words that come out of the President's mouth. HE is the one who said chained CPI was on the table.

Obama has used all of his political capital. He has no bargaining power left.

With no agreement on something different, sequestration kicks in, complete with Defense cuts. End of story.

What passed last night covered the tax question, but not SS/Medicare.

So the answer to your question remains to be seen, and only time will tell.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

Thank God for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the 29 Democratic Senators who swore they'd not vote for it, and the Republicans who never particularly pushed for it.

disapproval of it directly to their legislators, perhaps? Lots of us have been doing that, Manny. It works.

Thank you for pointing that out and by walking the walk.

For a minute, I thought you were mocking those of us who have been so outspoken about Obama's proposal. The mere fact that you went out of your way to contact your legislators and voice your concerns, indicates you really DO get it. Thank you so much for adding credibility to our concerns, and it's so very heart warming to know you'll be right beside us, fighting the good fight in the precarious months ahead!

Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

then they were clearly wrong.

If people said that Obama offered it at one point, they were right. If people said they were afraid the cuts would be part of the deal, I agree with them. If people say they are still worried, I agree with them as well.

thing. Helps motivate.

Robert Greenstein discusses caveats under which chained CPI would be acceptable in his view: http://fortmchenryii.blogspot.com/2012/12/robert-greenstein-thoroughly-explains.html

I would go for chained CPI if there were offsets for the elderly and poor (SSI) AND THE DEAL INCLUDED MUCH MORE REVENUE THAN CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED BY EITHER SIDE.

Presume Obama's offer included the offsets...

apart of the deal.

But I go back to LO bromide: Nothing is agreed to if everything is not agreed to.

Even if the President agreed to something as part of the process it wasn't agreed to until all of the pieces were agreed to.

If you included the context in which certain offers were made (ie offering something that has a 100% chance of being rejected).

Perhaps you could ask Nancy Pelosi's office: (415) 556-4862.

She seemed to know about it while so many others were saying that the chained CPI wasn't on the table at all.
She also seemed to believe that it wouldn't be a cut.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/nancy-pelosi-social-security_n_2333285.html

I'm glad it fell off the table, but at least I can admit that it was there.

GUARANTEE that?

Oh, and since you know for a fact that President Obama will never, ever, ever, offer it up again, those of us who have called and written the WH and our reps can now just sit back and stop contacting them about something that will never, ever, ever happen...right????

that means the whole can was just kicked down the road. The offer was made already and that means it will be demanded again. It's not hard to figure that out. What it means is we have to keep pressure on all of those who have offered it or supported that offer. If you don't like it, blame those who offered it, and those who kicked that can down that road. It is after all their fault that it is a subject of discussion at all.

The deal making shifted from the Grand Bargain solve the deficit table onto the immediate fix to avoid the fiscal cliff deal making table. The Chained CPI never was placed on that table by Obama and the Democrats though the Republicans briefly flirted with putting it there, then backed off. We are yet to see what will be placed onto the table again once the Grand Bargain bargaining resumes, and it will.

Our Dear Leader, having given up all his leverage to get half the revenue he once insisted upon, will be "forced" to cut "spending" during the "debt ceiling fight".

You know how this kabuki dance ends. Same shit. Different day.

The "leverage" is sequestration. Period. Just as it always was.

Surely it can't be because we're just not that smart.

good explanation

Kudos to Harry Reid and other Democrats who did the right thing on this one.

It's more like a lot of people were angry that Mr. Obama put chained CPI on the table. If Obama really wasn't willing to include chained CPI in a fiscal cliff solution he could have clearly stated that. Instead, we got:

But David, as you know, one of the proposals we made was something called Chain CPI, which sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security. Highly unpopular among Democrats. Not something supported by AARP. But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions.

It wasn't really on the table, you know.

It sure looks like you are. Please explain.

He did not introduce Chained CPI as a good thing at all, nor did he actively present it as a choice. He pointed out that both the Democrats and the AARP opposed it. He was singularly unenthusiastic about it. He brings it up, but does not support it. It's all part of the discussion mix. Obama is always happy to discuss things. That does not me he supports those things. Negotiation involves more than simple-minded thinking.

If you think I am calling the President a liar, then you are engaged in simple-minded thinking. I am calling President Obama a very clever negotiator. Watch for more of that.

...and you knew he wasn't serious when he offered chained CPI. So you came here to gloat and rub it in the faces of those you're diametrically opposed to--the left. In so doing, you falsely stated that chained CPI wasn't on the table, and now you're helpfully explaining that just because it looked like it was on the table, it really wasn't. And stuff. Happy new year.

get beaten by Georgia, sadly. Barring a miracle, of course. You are not getting what I am saying, but that's no surprise, so I think I'll just walk off shaking my head.

You're depending on information that none of us has to reach your conclusion.

PS: I know nothing of football, but I do know that every once in a great while, the underdog pulls one out. Good luck, and enjoy the game.

Notice the SOP of having something more important to do when they get nailed. Notice also they're immediately back downstream.

There's a certain dull comfort in knowing MM will always play true to form, and he does a great Patient-and-Kindly Man who has nonetheless had it up to here with your tomfoolery. Welcome to another year in GD.

Exactly. I'm astounded that so few here, understand political negotiations.

If things are considered only as binary choices, no subtlety is conceivable. For some DUers, there are only two possibilities in any decision, so subtlety and nuance can play no role. Very odd.

indeed. It seems we have a form of collective neurological impairment in play?

What a weak and frivolous ploy to attempt to simultaneoulsy mischaracterize what actually occurred and attack the people who were 100% in the right.

Lame, lame, lame.

House Republicans rejected it.

Deny all you want, if it helps get you through the day.

" I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling unless we get serious about keeping the country from becoming Greece, saving Social Security and Medicare . So here’s what i would like: meaningful entitlement reform — not to turn Social Security into private accounts, not to take a voucher approach to Medicare — but, adjust the age for Social Security, CPI changes and means testing and look beyond the ten-year window. I cannot in good conscience raise the debt ceiling without addressing the long term debt problems of this country and I will not."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014351424

Well, I don't believe he'll be dictating things, really. He's been saying stuff like that all along.

It's always interesting to see who gets quoted.

And that quote shows that they already have. Sorry you don't care for the reality that all of this did not get put to an end, it just got extended for the debt talks. Republicans, as I showed you, will not let go of that bone easily now that it has been offered up.

Messing with Social Security and Medicare are very much alive and living today ... assuming that the House even passes the 'deal'.

Frankly, this whole episode is disheartening and demoralizing; look for approval ratings fro Pres. Obama and Congress to sink in the next few weeks. I do believe we would be better off in the long run with a painful crisis that absolutely forces the politicians in Washington to do something genuinely significant. All of this kicking-the-can-down-the-road and papering-over the real problems is slowly, but surely, nickel-and-diming the middle class to death.

I'm pessimistic over this. I think Obama is one of the worst negotiators to ever occupy the Oval Office ... and I think that Boner and Mitch McTurtle are two of the lowest, most craven Repuglicans to ever 'lead' the Repuglicans in Congress. If you think Social Security is safe because it is not explicitly part of this 'deal' ... well, I think you are going to be in for a huge disappointment in a couple of months.

[IMG][/IMG][/URL]

It's always right around the corner and has been so since 2004.

Just give them some more time.

Sid

And how many people imagined that Pelosi said it, too.

It's amazing how many posters were dead fucking sure that SS was going to be cut, and it still hasn't been.

Sid

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw283.html

Shakespeare had the whole conjuring thing down in Macbeth, I think.

I suppose we should just assume that our "leaders" are lying to us and STFU, eh?

I guess we should always assume that Obama is lying?

Seems like selective perception to me.

We'll be back at this again in a couple months.

using vulnerable people to one up your opponent.

Anyways it's not a fake offer. The President is completely sincere.

The magic trick is that nobody really knows what his position on anything is.

Well actually we do because he keeps saying it, but some people choose not to believe their own eyes and ears.

People who say it was just a ploy have zero evidence to back that up. While we have plenty of evidence to show Obama has supported benefit cuts.

And the people who defend it are enabling the behavior to continue.

The President keeps bringing it up because he knows that it is incredibly unpopular with the electorate. He knows that even the Republicans can't vote for it. It's a negotiating trick. "See...I'll even throw this thing in the mix...Oh...you don't want that? Well, there you are, then."

Some folks seem to think that Washington negotiations are done in black and white terms. President Obama has no intention of putting Chained CPI in the mix in reality. He's just using it to demonstrate just how lame and obstructive the Republicans are being. It's working.

...the "normal" people are ones thinking in black and white.

I think the issue is taboo-based moralistic thinking. In many progressive minds just even TALKING about cuts to SS, even as a mere political ploy, is taboo and Evil with a capital E. It reminds me of deeply religious people with OCD that are in constant terror of going to hell because they have compulsive "blasphemous" thoughts.

Magical thinking is always interesting. I hadn't actually looked at it that way before. Thanks!

Utterly off limits, totally taboo, completely unacceptable even in a academic sense without bringing white hot fury and political ruin far worse than getting caught with live boys or dead girls just for consideration of cutting Social Security.

Not only don't touch that third rail, don't even talk about it.

I am dedicated to a very one sided conversation on the safety net, how to expand it.

Hell, if I could I'd make talk of maintaining the status quo toxic in Democratic circles too. If you aren't talking about expanding and closing the holes then you'd best register (R) because you aren't viable with a (D), dead as fried chicken as a matter of fact.

I want the furthest right acceptable discourse to be the status quo and I want that to be the fringe of the fringe.

I do not apologize for this stance and see no merit in any other stance.

I want talks of cuts to mean that you will never be able to run for even dog catcher again even in a beet red district,
that no one will pay you to speak, you will be too toxic to be on stage at even the TeaPubliKlan convention, and no one wants to hear your thoughts on anything.

Hell yes, I want it drilled into politicians heads that they will be beyond done and more than a pariah for such nonsense and the common man on the street may as well be talking about eating babies if they are talking such bullshit.

Do I want talk of safety net cuts to be a "hanging offense", particularly for Democrats even for political ploys? GUILTY AS CHARGED!

It isn't our job to negotiate, that is what legislators are hired for. Our job is to push the miserable fucks and give them as little room to fuck us over as we can muster.
It is not our job to trust anyone to do the right thing, our job is to make them fucking do it whether they want to or not if they don't want to then to replace them with someone who does.

why you don't. The current conversation makes the leftward edge the status quo, how is that a benefit?

What is so complicated about controlling the political spectrum and what is acceptable discourse? That is how events are moved. You have had a generation to get the lesson.

Probably got so much blow back from his senior constituents he didn't dare keep it on. Obama has admitted he was willing to "go there."

I see that the holy ones have weighed in on this thread and that their god has just told them the new date for it.

Hey, you think GD is bad about this....there are certain places on this site where it's a full-time job for some people.

The president is on record saying he supports it.

This is a stopgap measure that doesn't deal with the budget issues, but does settle some things about taxation. At least now companies know what withholding tables to use (or they will if the House passes the measure).

He still wants it, so he gets zero credit that it hasn't happened YET.

When a politician offers up policy or parts to a policy - well, it is on the table for discussion.
What happens is, if nobody says anything about it, well, then the politician is right to think
that the public must like it. So it is made part of the policy.

The lesson here is that anytime a politician puts a policy/bill on the table that We The People don't
want or like - we have to have to voice our opinion loudly and constantly.

Independent of whether it is a bargaining chip or a real policy - we have to insure the politicians
know our position...

And sometimes it's put on the table to rouse support against it to get elected reps off their buttocks.

twice now, as a hostage to get a deal that makes 80 to 90 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

That takes a lot of chutzpah.

GOP Hostage taking is getting to be about as frequent as mass shootings with semi-auto weapons in America, coincidence?

For someone that has been heavily politically involved for such a long time, MM, you are sounding very much like a naive rookie on this.

"Those who fail to learn from history, are condemned to repeat it."

The ones who refused to change their tone when it was clear that they were wrong were (and still are) trolling.