Skip to main content

View Diary: House passes Murray-Ryan budget (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is he willing to compromise on it? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, Glenn45, jrand

    You're saying the same thing as I am, and pretending it's different.

    He wants a big legacy deal, he's willing to compromise on Social Security payments, of all things, at the exact time they need to go up.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 04:12:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's the difference (0+ / 0-)

      between Clinton advocating investing Social Security money in the stock market because he thinks it's a good idea, and Obama making chained CPI conditional on Republicans agreeing to things progressives want.
      One is advocacy for a bad idea, which Obama did not do. The other is compromise. Criticizing him for being willing to compromise would be accurate, but claiming he "wants" chained CPI like it's his agenda item he's advancing simply isn't true. If he "wants" chained cpi like you claim he has a funny way of showing it since he has never said a word advocating for it.

      •  Simple stuff. (0+ / 0-)

        He wants Chained CPI because that's the means to his ends of a grand bargain. He wants Chained CPI to be enacted so that he gets other things. But why Chained CPI?

        He's advocated the Chained CPI policy through his comprehensive budget. If this is the devolved excuse for his proposal, fine. We're past the danger point for now, and revisionism about the effects of that budget is harmless. But it was a proposal from the Obama Administration.

        Compromises are fine. Compromising on Social Security as part of a budget deal is non-sensical as it's not even part of the budget. Obama's support of Chained CPI as a means to his ends was non-sensical, and doesn't deserve support or excuse-making. Forcing seniors to live on less is a terrible idea, and unnecessary.

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 04:34:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, Addison. Readers see page 46 of the (0+ / 0-)

          2014 Budget.

          Here's a link to the President's Budget.  I cannot get the PDF text to copy and paste.

          But here are the headings:



          This is the proposal to enact the "Chained CPI."


          on Page 42, there is the proposal to "REFORM FEDERAL CIVILIAN SERVICE RETIREMENT."


          So the idea that Dem lawmakers were "hapless victims" of the other Party, don't hold water.

          IOW, this was not a "hostage taking" situation.


          PLEASE read the President's 2014 Budget!


          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          by musiccitymollie on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 10:51:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Simpler still. (0+ / 0-)

          If Obama were really advocating for Chained CPI, as in actually pushing it instead of making it conditional on Republicans agreeing to progressive agenda items, it probably would have passed by now. That's kinda more important than somebody's need to mind read Obama's evil intentions.

    •  Bc offering something at the start that you know (0+ / 0-)

      your troops will reject if the deal gets close to being done, in the hopes it will bring the other side tot he table in good faith is a time-honored negotiating tactic.  

      IOW, Thugs were supposed to bite, and you were supposed to go apeshit over it so your D congresscritters gave BO the cover to get Thugs to settle on something else.

      It didn't work, 'cause the only time you need cutesy strategy is when the other side's nature means they almost certainly won't fall for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site