home

WaPo: Obama Says No To Cuts In Social Security

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:19:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery:

President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, cheering liberals and drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress.

Good decision.

Speaking for me only

< The Benign Neglect Of Tax Policy | Monday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WaPo: Obama Says No To Cuts In Social Security | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I will note (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    that in fact Obama is not reported as saying No to cuts, just no to endorsing cuts.

    I'll be honest, this is my meager attempt to try  smoke him out. If it gets reported this way, either Obama's folks walk it back or confirm.

    Either way, we might get a better idea of which way the wind is blowing.

    For (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    a moment there, I thought that maybe there was a line that even Obama would not dare to cross.

    But you reawakened me to the reality that all that the article is saying is that Obama is staying out of it for the moment, while the real action is going on elsewhere.

    Parent

    That, alone, would be reassuring (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Makarov on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:57:56 PM EST
    if we didn't know what we know about how Obama handled health care reform.

    While he ostensibly waited to see what Congress came up with, he was negotiating independently to kill the public option, prescription drug price negotiation and drug re-importation.

    Of course, polling is ever consistent on social security. There is no mandate to cut present or future benefits. Quite the opposite.

    For now, I'm with Atrios in that I can stop worrying about SS for a month. When the next "hostage situation" emerges (hi, Debt Ceiling vote), all bets are off.

    Parent

    That's the Key Distinction (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Maven on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    and one I would have raised had you not already done so.

    It's relatively easy for Obama to say that he won't endorse such cuts, but a far different thing to rule them completely off the table as a non-negotiable point.  I suspect that he would avoid the latter as part of an attempt to show his negotiating bona fides by being willing to discuss anything and everything.  The GOP, knowing this, may well take him to the cleaners yet again, and we the people get fleeced.

    Parent

    I don't know where this ends up (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35:40 PM EST
    but if he shields SS a lot of people here should acknowledge the lack of faith they had in him.

    I tend to think that he'll give on something SS related (maybe a one year raise in the age).  I just want him to get something for it.

    Parent

    Typically, the way this works is (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 07:05:29 AM EST
    that the popular stuff gets the prime-time, national platform, and the not-so-poular stuff continues to be worked on outside the limelight.

    Remember Obama's out-in-front insistence that he supported the so-called public option?  What was going on in the meantime, out of camera and media range?  Yes, that's right, closed-door, back-room meetings with industry honchos to craft "deals" that would guarantee no such thing ever happened.

    "Shielding" the nation from a discussion of entitlements during the SOTU is not the same as shielding Social Security itself from the sharp knives of those who have waited years for a chance to start carving it up.  Someone intent on shielding entitlements would have taken them off the table for his Deficit Commission, don't you think?  Someone intent on shielding entitlements would not keep talking about "fixing" them, would not keep praising some of the "good ideas" related to means-testing and partial privatization.  While one can't always go by what someone says, one can connect words to actions to get a better sense of where someone is headed.

    I have every expectation that Obama will "give" on Social Security - with an assist from the conservative Dems and the GOP - but I think it less likely that he - and more importantly, we - will get anything of real consequence for it.

    And I have to say, you have a rather cavalier attitude about the possibility that people might have to work longer than they had originally been promised before being able to collect Social Security; when you're looking at that year from your 20's or 30's, it doesn't seem like such a big deal, but trust me when I tell you that when you're in your 50's or early 60's, those years loom a lot larger, and you don't get from one year to the next as easily as you used to.

    But, hey, what do you care when you're only concern seems to be what's best for Barack Obama?

    Parent

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    "Whistling in the wind".

    SOTUs are nothing more than pep rallies. The speech is leaked hours before, so we all will know basically what he's going to say (minus a few little "surprises").  There is never any substance - it's about one side trumpeting "success" and the other sitting silently (no matter how many SOTU bi-partisan "dates" happen tonight).  Then there will be hours of analyzing by pundits.  Political junkies will watch the networks they agree with, hear the cheerleading, and learn nothing more substantive than was in the speech.

    The devil is in the details, which will not be mentioned in the speech or in the post-game analysis.  Which is why I haven't watched a SOTU in something like 10 years.  It's all fluff.

    Parent

    It will be impossible to tell from the (none / 0) (#46)
    by observed on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:05:07 AM EST
    SOTU address whether Obama "shields" SS or not.
    You have to look at the actual results.
    I would bet money that Obama either agrees to raise the retirement age, or cuts benefits, before 2012.

    Parent
    President Obama shielding (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    Social Security should be a given not a question.  Bob Herbert (cf. NYT op ed Jan 25) also expresses his concern which along with commenters here will hopefully serve to provide a voice for the program, among other hostile  voices the president hears.

    Parent
    Agreed. It is a good decision (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    not to include social security cuts in the SOTU, since it will take this needlessly contentious issue off the table.  Otherwise, that portion of his speech would draw fire from all quarters losing in the process whatever else he plans to present. Of course, it may be put back on table, or under the table, later. It would be great if he, instead, proposed investments for job creation and reiterated that the Bush tax cuts were temporary until the economy rebounds. But, if that is not to be case, it will be enough he if just gives the best SOTU, ever, content-free but with inspiration and hope for all.

    Perhaps someone in the WH noticed that social security was among the least worrisome factors facing the country at the moment.

    'least worrisome' might be the reason (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    it gets addressed... I hope the president doesn't use it, and doesn't make any changes to eligibility, retirement age, etc.

    If, on the other hand, he comes out for lifting the cap on SS, I'm in favor of it.

    Parent

    Lifting the cap is an equitable (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:50:38 PM EST
    fix. But even proposing such a "tax increase" in this Republican/Tea Party environment may just open up the issue in a manner that we would rather not see and result in a concession masquerading as a compromise that we would rather not have.  The urgency is just not there for Obama to be a key party to an ideologic attack in the name of deficit reduction, which, of course, it would not be.

    Parent
    Which really makes you wonder (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    why his Administration was floating the trial balloon last week about changing Social Security.  One would think that the last thing that they could get through a GOP House would be raising the cap; and one knows that all of the most injurious changes to the program are the only ones that he could get through the House.  If Obama were opposed to harming Social Security, one would think that he would understand that now is not the time - and with 26 years to make the fixes there shouldn't be a rush...

    Which makes me think that the fact that they aren't going to endorse is just a political decision that isn't particularly indicative of deep commitment to protecting and preserving the program.

    Parent

    There you go. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:15:29 AM EST
    I have believed for years that lifting the cap, or barring that, creating a donut hole, would be the most equitable and reasonable solution for SS. Why should I have to pay SS tax on 100% of my income when the CEO of my company only pays SS tax on about a quarter (or less) of hers?

    Or create a donut hole. Keep the cap, then tax income over, say $250K (that seems to be the popular number).

    Parent

    Appreciate your astute remarks, KeysDan (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    Social Security is more than a 3rd rail.... For a Democrat, other than removing the cap, its pffft. (Actually, it was that with Bush' "capital" in 2005 also.)  
    I'm looking forward to the vision aspect, and what appears to be the linking of innovation & competitive economy with an expansive investment in education and in transportation/infrastructure renewa. A job creation thrust in the context of renewed unity.


    Parent
    Later in that article (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TJBuff on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources

    So... let the lawmakers (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    work on a solvent program's solvency while not addressing, inter alia, medicare?

    Sigh.

    Parent

    "let the lawmakers do it" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    We all saw how the "let Congress do it" hands-off approach was so successful with the design of the stimulus bill and the health care reform bill.

    Parent
    He may not be "endorsing" them, or (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    even mentioning them by name on Tuesday night, but I don't think anyone should believe that means he is saying "no" to cuts or changes.

    Tomorrow night is the unofficial launch of Obama 2012, so the last thing he's going to want to do is go heavy on austerity and "shared sacrifice."  No, I think we're going to get a heavy dose of Hope - you remember that one, right? - and a lot of WTF, which is apparently not the acronym you think it is, but the new, improved Obama version that stands for Win The Future.  I kid you not.  I bet Jon Favreau is still giggling over his brilliance.

    Yay...

    I feel better already.

    And won't we all be cheered by the commingling of Dems and Republicans in the chamber; we really can all get along!

    No, there may be a brief moratorium on entitlement-talk, but rest assured the issue is alive and well.

    And, hey, even if he came out and flat-out stated that he is opposed to cuts/changes to entitlements, supports an increase in the cap on payroll taxes, and will fight to the end to maintain the programs, do we have any reason to believe he means it?

    I don't think so.

    Oh it's the acronym I think it is, alright. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sj on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    Other than that, I agree with what you say here.  He already has successfully put a major nail in the SS ship with the 2% coming from the general fund.  He can afford to say nothing now.  Costs him absolutely nothing.

    And if I'm wrong about this I will be delighted to eat crow.  But I don't think I'll have to.

    Parent

    The more I think about that (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:00:40 PM EST
    2% cut, the more I think that it is and was a cruel joke on people who are most in need of the program's support.  The wealthiest Americans who really would not ever miss their cut were it taken away - not in any meaningful way - could have paid more to pay for an additional stimulus - but instead they asked the middle and working classes to borrow from their own retirement in order to create a stimulus.  

    Parent
    Delay hurts entitlement reform (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    The bad economy makes people feel more alarmed about government spending....as in, everyone feels there is less money--I have to cut back, so should the governement....

    If the economy continues to improve, much of the panic mentality about government spending should ease....

    Eric Cantor wanted no part of any discusssion about changing Social Security on MTP yesterday.  The more time goes on, the more squeamish the Republicans will get....

    Parent

    That's what I think anyway (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    Any pol who even suggests cutting SS benefits, even way down the road, in an economic climate of massive insecurity like this, with everybody's 401(k)s, IRAs, etc., having taken huge hits, needs a psychiatrist.

    I think if there's going to be a serious SS battle, it will be years down the road, not now.

    Parent

    I'm not getting drawn in again (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    There is no way to know where he stands until the final days of the negotiation for the legislation. That is an 'as designed' feature of his approach, not a bug.

    I don't like it, but that's the way he operates.

    It sure is (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:37:46 AM EST
    Do you suppose he has the slightest clue why nobody believes what he says anymore?

    Parent
    But I bet that we still will hear (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    the term "entitlement" in the SOTU, at least once.  

    We have seen before that Obama can be adroit in signalling conservatives in ways that still allow him deniablity with liberals.

    And it works so well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    that the headline in my paper this morning was 'GOP waiting for 'centrist Obama'.

    Conservatives will never admit they hear the signal.

    Parent

    Harrry Reid (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:58:55 PM EST
    flatly said on MTP a week ago that there is no problem with social security, and that people should stop picking on social security when talking about the debt/deficit.

    David Gregory was shocked.  Reid stood his ground and said that those who talked about changing social security didn't like government at all.

    Yesterday, on MTP, David Gregory when interviewing Eric Cantor, played the Harry Reid clip from the week before.   Cantor did not directly dispute Harry, and wanted to get out of the conversation as quickly as possible.

    If people keep repeating what Harry said, just as MTP replayed his comments, then the attempts to harm the program can be defeated before they get off the ground.

    Exactly. Good strategy. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:04:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kmblue on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:16:43 PM EST
    the truthful voices are being drowned out by "The Big Lie" tactics of the other side.

    And with a Dem president committed to comity, those  cries will continue to be unheard.

    Parent

    I don't know. (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:23:40 PM EST
    The beltway is enamored of getting rid of SS but the public definitely is NOT. The GOP took a shellacking when Bush tried to mess with it so maybe EVEN the GOP is too scared to touch it.

    Of course, with Obama though, they might be in a win win situation. They could mess with it and he'll go along and they have the perfect fall guy.

    Parent

    I agree with your first paragraph (none / 0) (#29)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    For a serious politician at higher levels, it is taboo to get to close to any suggestion of change in the Social Security area, as you indicate in your first paragraph.

    As for the second paragraph: Could it be that some have let their own concerns and fears act as reflective shadows as to what they perceive the President's "true intent" (or whatever) really is? Forgive me, please, for suggesting that some others may evidence such cynicism as to present a skeptical scab about the subject. (And, BTW, I respond here to you because there is an indication that--under it all--that skepticism is not there as a cover or other protective device or anything else.)

    Earlier, you said that we should see which way the wind blows. Whether it is the wind or the turn of events, I agree. It doesn't make us or anyone more vulnerable to keep an open mind.

    Parent

    Well (4.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:07:46 PM EST
    going by Obama's history you know that he is not to be trusted on ANY issue. All the GOP has to do is threaten to take hostages and he will hand over the money. Honestly, all politicians are craven to a certain degree but I don't know that I've ever seen one quite as craven as Obama.

    Parent
    I don't know the state of his or others' political (2.00 / 0) (#31)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 08:20:21 PM EST
    minds. From my somewhat left-of-center perspective, the movement from this Administration is definitely acceptable...compared to what I had seen in the past and compared to what I expected. I do see that President Obama grasps the art of compromise, and that sometimes it is further than I would like. (But, no one that I know does everything or most things the way that I would.)

    Yes, he is a politician. Show me any President who wasn't. In my mind, political astuteness and acuity does that mean "craven." And, yes, I believe that those further along the continuum toward the left may be frustrated and more. I can see why (because in earlier days, I would have felt the same feeling between anger, disappointment, frustration.) But, my wants "politically" are much more incremental; my primary fear is boomeraning backwards. I'll take it a step at a time...and push harder for some measures than for others. Right now, my sentiments about the State of the Union address echo KeysDan's earlier remarks about desiring to hear/witness an inspirational call and speech about renewed vision.

    Parent

    At some point, inspirational rhetoric (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 10:08:25 PM EST
    simply fails to do more than give false hope to people who already took a chance and traveled down a path they thought was going to get them out of the economic hole they're in, only to see - over and over and over - all the rewards going to those who already have so much, and many of whom were responsible for much of the mess we're in.

    When you can't find a job, and you've waited two years now for Obama and the Congress to do something about the jobs situation, hearing promises about innovation and competition and Win The Future sounds a whole lot like Please Re-Elect Me in 2012.

    When you're uninsured, cannot afford health care, much less insurance, watching and waiting for almost two years to get "reform" that still doesn't help you, listening to the president take credit for unprecedented reform - which I have no doubt he will - doesn't make you feel better.

    When you're inching closer to the day when you might finally retire, and you've seen your president convene a commission led by proud entitlement-haters, and heard him talk admiringly of the Republicans' "good ideas," soaring rhetoric doesn't make you feel better about your future.

    When we're spending obscene amounts of money on war, and we're still not taking care of our veterans, an hour or so of finely-crafted words won't ease that burden.

    It seems to me that often, the SOTU is a platform for self-congratulation, and not much more.

    This year, maybe more than most, I think the speech will ring hollow for far too many people.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:02:55 AM EST
    does not understand the art of compromise. Obama understands the art of caving. Obama has the negotiation skills of a wimp. Can you imagine him being your attorney in divorce? Your ex would walk away with literally everything. That's not compromise in my book.

    Parent
    Obtaining/moving toward all /part of what you want (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    meets the definition of compromise in my book. IMO, it can be demonstrated--using a traditional approach to "compromise"--that the President knows quite a bit about that delicate art.  

    Now, whether an individual would want or expect more is a different matter. What strikes me is that--for now, in any event--he does seem to have convinced the citizenry at large that he is "compromising" to the center, as evidenced by poll after reported poll since the lameduck congressional days. Again, polls are somewhat ephemeral--and the Indpendents particularly fickle--but, in this republic, it is a snapshot in time. In terms of the majority template in the land, he does seem to be reaching the people these days.

    To tell you the truth, what I'd like to see is a good discussion here and elsewhere about what the "art of compromise" is...to all of us. My own work involved a lot of that as a negotiator at different times; and, I saw a lot of different styles in that regard. To this day, I still don't know that there is only one acceptable compromise road. Not to dodge your implied question or statement, Ga6thDem, but I think context is important. Suggested question: Do different backgrounds and different personalities at the table call for different or adaptable compromise methods?

    (Note: Excuse my riff on the "compromise" word here. It is a subject dear to my heart; and, I took the opportunity to expound on a favorite subject.)

    Parent

    However (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    Compromise implies starting at an outer position and moving toward the center.  Obama's method usually is starting in the center and moving to the right.  If that's his idea of compromise, I say "no, thank you."

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#53)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    the "outer point" can differ. For example: In negotiating penalties for reg violations, some attorneys with whom I worked started at the "outer limit" that noone would touch to work in and others (myself included) started closer to where one would expect to end up. Starting at the outer "outer limit" had the advantage of getting attention and possibly being a deterrent for future non-compliers, etc. Lots of advantages. The drawbacks: Almost always took a lot of time, which--in turn--required personnel not doing other things needing to be done, etc.  So much depended on the overall goal together with follow-up plans. Sounds like pablum, I know; but, different styles worked and were better for differing situations.

    At times, starting from a closer-in "outer limit" allowed for a broader deterrence effect because you could resolve more issues. While I have found that the President seems to move more quickly to perceived center, the upshot is that there are demonstrably more steps in more strategic areas that have been obtained as a result. The downside, of course, is that it is far from the whole loaf.  Another thing: Sometimes the two sides are playing from different playbooks as to how the negotiation process is expected to proceed. For example: An unnamed national steel company used to negotiate from their outer outer limit position and assumed that we did as well...it took awhile for both sides to alter responses and reach results in adapting to that reality.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    In your job you probably negotiated with people who were reasonable and knew they had to get the job done.  In Obama's case, he was negotiating with people who were more extreme and knew that they won simply by not giving in and making him cave.  That's not negotiation - that's winning a war of attrition.

    Parent
    True...in many cases, jbindc (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    But a number of environmental regulatory battles involved large corporations with either a strong anti-government fervor (particularly in the environmental area) or with an almost religious zeal. A number of those cases went to the US Court of Appeals (and, others I know, went to the Supreme Court.)
    A thought: One view of the world--which I share--is that interest-based bargaining works. In ongoing structural relationships (e.g., governmental), sometimes one side wins big and sometimes the other and at other times both sides get something they want and lose something they want. Its a long haul; but, the system favors a stability...and not too much upheaval. I think, then, that our real challenge from left of center is to ascertain and prioritize our own AND others interests to optimize results over that long haul.

    A second thought: The negotiations near the end of the Vietnam war taught me a lot. First, I learned that the almost interminable dance about the size & shape of that table had a purpose. Second, I learned that even battling, bloodied enemies can agree on some things that serve their interests.

    Finally, on negotiating with the Republican-types we've seen in recent years: I think the jury is still out (as they say) on the upshot of the most recent rounds at the end of the last Congress. One thing I do know...In the face of all the bravado from the Republicans at the time, the President realized the START Treaty, the repeal of DADT, extra $$ for most Americans who need it badly now via the temporary payroll holiday. Yes, the agreement to extend tax cuts for everyone is a negative component as to the wealthy; but, yes also, we can all live to fight another day on that one. He had lemons after the elections...by the end of the year, it almost resembled lemonade in terms of what you could make. And, in the process, in the eyes of an increasing number of Americans, he appears to have enhanced his position now and in the coming months. In DC, those polls count (no matter how ephemeral.)

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:12:24 PM EST
    But how long will that goodwill last? Most people don't pay attention to politics over the holidays - they only heard about the "wins" he had, so there was some goodwill there.  And don't forget, the Republicans really haven't started governing yet - that starts tomorrow.  Obama also benefitted (if you will forgive the word) from the Tuscon tragedy because he did what was expected of him - he became the mourner-in-chief and looked presidential.  There's been kind of a "cease fire" between the parties (including the high school prom atmosphere of "who's going with whom" to the SOTU).  But I believe the gloves come off tomorrow.

    We shall see.

    Parent

    Yep, to be continued in later rounds (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:31:45 PM EST
    Because the gloves do come off tomorrow. And, I completely agree about the timing and various benefits. The test in these situations--as you know--is whether he can build on the momentum, and not assume that it will carry him for the next several months. (Heh, I must be into adages today: He can't sit on his laurels. Strike while the iron is hot. Etc. etc.)
    I'm sure we'll talk more later.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    someone who is a good negotiator knows when to walk away. Obama has no "line in the sand". He just begs them not to take more hostages and hands all the money over. You call that a compromise? I don't. A compromise would be getting about half of what you want. Obama usually gets nothing.

    Unless, of course, perhaps you DO believe that Obama really wants to continue Bush policy. If you are coming from that standpoint, yeah, he is compromising.

    Parent

    A compromise can often mean something (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:44:42 PM EST
    other than what you describe. Yes, the negotiator should know when to walk away...but, we might not agree on how important the steps attained actually are.

    Parent
    Comment to Zorba (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:29:01 PM EST
    Sorry for offending you by stating my belief.

    Parent
    Sorry that (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    you're offended by my down-rating you.  Your incremental political "wants" are not acceptable to me.  But then, I am much further to the left than you are.

    Parent
    Thank you for the reply (none / 0) (#34)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 10:07:49 PM EST
    I wonder if the two of us (and I am speaking to myself here too) could respect each other's perspective...and reserve a downer rating for times when one or the other deliberately (or even accidently) jabs/offends/insults the other directly. That would be my proposal.

    Parent
    I'll agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 10:41:56 PM EST
    to that.  We can agree to respectfully disagree.

    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:41:29 AM EST
    The Beltway is not "enamored of getting rid of SS."  It's enamored of raising the retirement age or cutting future benefits a bit, but no way, nohow "enamored of gettting rid" of it.

    Parent
    Death (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 05:59:43 AM EST
    by a 1000 paper cuts is what I see.

    Parent
    Good for Harry (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:39:45 AM EST
    Plus it's always a pleasure to see that weasel Cantor squirm.  Gregory got him to do it several times, on SS and on the birthers.

    Parent
    Commission was a shrewd tactic (none / 0) (#1)
    by Yes2Truth on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:23:25 PM EST

    Having rightwingers as commissioners produced
    the desired effect of allowing O an opp'y to
    appeal to his centrist base.

    Headline is misleading. Why? (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    "in Tuesday's State of the Union address, . . ."

    is the qualifier.

    Oh. Method in the madness. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:32:24 PM EST


    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    we'll see which way the wind blows soon enough.

    Make it uncomfortable for any weathervane (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    to favor social security cuts or changes....

    Parent
    and you believe him? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 08:05:19 AM EST
    I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Someone in the thread already nailed it- he isn't going to call for cuts - in the state of the union- beyond that i wouldn't hold my breath.

    I've always believed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    that I would never live long enough to collect a dime of the money I've paid into SS. With the Republicans currently running the House, I'm sure that's closer to reality now than ever.

    WaPo: Obama Says No To Cuts In Social Security | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment