[Economics] If Obama actually gives us the VSP Grand Bargain

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:11 pm

in its current form...

The progressive caucus and anyone smart enough not to vote for deficit reduction will HAVE to throw him to the wolves. I have nothing but disdain for emoprogs (not as much contempt as for conservatives or moderates, but still) and I will cheerfully and cynically explain that drones are not only acceptable but desirable because every point non-conservatives have on National Security is another tens of thousands of lives saved.

But something as fucking stupid as, say, raising the Social Security age? Or even just the extremely predictable austerity shock that will cause a double-dip recession? From a strict CYA political perspective, the Democratic party will literally have no choice. The DNC/DSCC will almost certainly stick up for Obama so it's not like Democrats at large will be able to pull a Nixon and just throw Obama to the wolves. They will have to get away from that banner ASAP and hope that the stench of failure gets confined to the VSP.

And when the inevitable Republican impeachment proceedings come for Obama, I will also probably support them. Not for whatever trumped-up reason they come up with, but anyone that frelling insular is a danger to the country.

One of the funnier and more terrifying things about the 2012 election is seeing how much the Inner Party has been tricked by their own prolefeed. One thing I will NOT be prepared for, however, is if Eastasia also gets tricked by Oceania's prolefeed. Or whatever; this metaphor is falling apart.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:21 pm

VSP grand bargain? What the fuck are you talking about.
Can you try this entire thing again, but this time in english? Because right now you're making as much sense as Glenn Beck.

Raising the social security age is actually a requirement. It sucks for me, because I'll be in that higher age bracket, but raising it to 67 or 68 really is a must. People are living significantly longer than they used to. My grandfather, is almost 93 years old. He retired from a government job at 55. He has been retired for 37 years. He worked for 36 years. Social welfare in it's current form cannot support that. It was ment to help the elderly for 10-20 years tops. Not going on 30. And all those baby boomers had 1/2 as many kids as their parents. So the stupid thing is incredibly top heavy. Social Security is incredibly important, and part of the problem is Congress stealing money from the Social Security funds to fun other things, and leaving a bunch of IOU's in there instead. But that being said, you absolutely have to raise the age from where it is now to about 67.

Post by **fbmf** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:26 pm

I'm not sure what the VSP Grand Bargain is either. A google search turned up this unsatisfying explanation

a total rewrite of not just the tax code, but just about every major social program on which Americans rely

but some specifics would be nice.

Game On,
fbmf

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:46 pm

sabs wrote:VSP grand bargain? What the fuck are you talking about.
Can you try this entire thing again, but this time in english? Because right now you're making as much sense as Glenn Beck.

The Very Serious People of the American political commentariat all are fapping to Simpson-Bowles and claiming that we need a "grand bargain" between Democrats and Republicans where we agree to harsh cuts in social spending and modest tax increases to balance the budget. And we need to do this now, because otherwise the "fiscal cliff" kicks in and kicks in some automatic tax increases and spending cuts. And that would be... bad? It doesn't make a lot of sense. If there is urgency to cut spending and raise taxes, then there's no urgency to make a deal. If there's no urgency to do those things... then there's no urgency to make a deal.

Raising the social security age is actually a requirement. It sucks for me, because I'll be in that higher age bracket, but raising it to 67 or 68 really is a must. People are living significantly longer than they used to. My grandfather, is almost 93 years old. He retired from a government job at 55. He has been retired for 37 years. He worked for 36 years. Social welfare in it's current form cannot support that. It was ment to help the elderly for 10-20 years tops. Not going on 30. And all those baby boomers had 1/2 as many kids as their parents. So the stupid thing is incredibly top heavy. Social Security is incredibly important, and part of the problem is Congress stealing money from the Social Security funds to fun other things, and leaving a bunch of IOU's in there instead. But that being said, you absolutely have to raise the age from where it is now to about 67.

This is completely wrong. First of all, the projected increases of life expectancy, while real, are nothing like budget busting by themselves.

We've already had the number of social security recipients double as a percentage of the population, and it's never going to double again. Yes, productivity probably won't grow as fast in the next eighty years as it grew in the last eighty years, but it will still grow. And it will almost certainly grow considerably faster than the percentage of grayheads.

What this means is that without changing the social security age at all, I will be a lower relative burden on my grandchildren than my grandparents were on me. If productivity increases more than the percentage of grayheads, which it will, then the number of hours each person of working age puts in each year to pay for the social security of the currently old will be less.

I don't honestly give two fucks about some anecdote about your grandfather living really long. That shit happens. It doesn't mean shit. For reference: my father died in a black swan event at 58. That also doesn't mean shit from the perspective of demography. The two relevant pieces of data are that the percentage of the population over sixty five will continue to increase up to a point and then level off (this makes it harder to pay for their retirement), and that the productivity of each worker will continue to rise for the foreseeable future (this makes it easier to pay for their retirement). The second effect is bigger than the first, so there is not now and never will be any actual demography crisis.

People like you pretending to be serious deep thinkers on this issue and then offering to betray the current generation of workers are the worst people in the country. You're worse than the people who want to let sick people die in the street. You're worse than the people who want to shoot Black people for carrying Skittles. Because unlike those assholes, you guys get taken seriously despite the fact that your agenda is just as stupid and monstrous.

-Username17

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:48 pm

Google doesn't seem to have any relevant links for VSP, but Wikipedia suggests that it's short for "Very Serious People" used in a sarcastic manner by liberal bloggers.

The "Grand Bargain" googled alone appears to be the name for "whatever deal we reach to avoid the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that are scheduled to hit". The White House's current offer to Boehner appears to be here: http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... dward?lite

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:52 pm

sabs wrote:Raising the social security age is actually a requirement.

Only if you're a centrist idiot or a conservative shyster with hidden motives.

If you think our country runs like it's on the gold standard despite having a fiat economy, you can always, oh, increase taxes on the rich, implement single-payer healthcare, and reduce funding to the MIC.

If you believe in MMT, there isn't even a reason to raise taxes to 'fund' Social Security.

fbmf wrote:I'm not sure what the VSP Grand Bargain is either.

Whatever wrote:Google doesn't seem to have any relevant links for VSP, but Wikipedia suggests that it's short for "Very Serious People" used in a sarcastic manner by liberal bloggers.

Very Serious People = Very Serious People. Very Serious People are centrists/center-right/Third Way idiots who can recommend or praise blatantly wrong or evil political policy like the 2nd Iraq War, Ryan Budget, NCLB, structural unemployment, etc.. But they continue to remain respectable and command the attention of the press and politicians because their opinions are mainstream.

Grand Bargain = You remember the 2011 deficit ceiling hysteria, right? Well, the Grand Bargain was Obama's attempt to stave off the country defaulting on its debt obligations by giving up huge spending concessions to deficit chickenhawks. Despite the fact that the deficit is not a problem and even if it were flipping out about it now is the absolute worst time for it. Regardless, VSP LOVE deficit reduction -- because they're retarded centrists or are shills for Wall Street -- and intimated hope that Obama and Boehner would come together for the sort of bipartisan Grand Bargain that Obama was somehow not able to achieve previously.

It (thankfully) didn't go through as the conservative wing hoped because of Tea Party and liberal intransigence. But this wasn't Obama outmaneuvering or playing 11-dimensional Chess; it was just his ass getting lucky.

In January 2011, the provisions for not getting a deal (cuts to the MIC and reversal of the Bush Tax cuts) go in. This will create a large austerity shock when the nation is still just barely under 8.0% unemployment.

Something does need to be done and both the Democrats and Republicans realize this. However, my opinion on Obama has soured massively after the election; I used to think that the setup was just his clever maneuvering around the news cycle and economically illiterate centrist/conservatives. After all, liberals do want taxes on the rich to go up AND we want the MIC to have less power. But we still need to do something about the anti-austerity shock. Obama has unexpectedly put us in an extremely strong position.

Unfortunately, whether due to stupidity or cupidity, Obama does not seem to realize this. He's making noise like the deficit is actually a thing that needs to go down and that he's willing to call a mulligan on the whole thing as long as he gets his VSP-masturbating Grand Bargain.

By doing things like raising the Social Security age and cutting benefits to Medicare recipients not only is he guaranteed to have a double dip recession but it will be done in such a way to completely discredit the Democratic Party. What's worse is that unlike 2011 his hand isn't even being forced. He's just betraying party principles to stroke his own ego -- and not even in an effective way, since he will be hated and discredited by literally everyone.

So to take this course of action requires a brain-breakingly large bout of stupidity on his behalf. At the very least the progressive wing of the Democratic party will have to completely disown him if they want to survive. We're not just talking a promise that he failed to keep for outside reasons, like Gitmo camps. We're not talking about COA that he would have been literally unable to prevent like NDAA. We're not even talking an actual avoidable betrayal like appointing Timothy Geithner or Elena Kagan.

No no. This is different: we're talking actual ideological suicide for... what reason exactly? Even under the most supervillainy of motives Obama or his hypothetical backers just plain don't benefit in any rational way.

The only possible reason for Obama going through with this is that he has drunk the centrist Flavor-Aide. But we already know that centrism is a morally and ideologically bankrupt position designed to stroke the useless egos of cowards and morons. Thanks for the backup on the ERA, affirmative action, welfare, and warfare avoidance you pusillanimous shits.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:01 pm

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012 ... ml#respond

While centrism is usually less stupid than conservatism, oftentimes centrist policy actually turns out to be more harmful. And not just in a 'tainted by association policy', either. DADT is one example of where the centrist solution was worse than both the conservative and liberal solution. Fission-based nuclear power is another. NCLB is another. Anti-abortion exceptions for rape and incest are another.

But probably the biggest example is austerity/deficit reduction. You can look at Greece right now for an example. If I was forced to vote and I couldn't do it for Syriza or any leftist coalition, I would seriously vote for the Neo-Nazis Golden Dawn. Well, maybe I might for the Independents, but I think they would support austerity when it came down to it.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:14 pm

I do recall reading/hearing about how Obama was trying to agree to Boehner's ridiculous plan that would have totally fucked our economy and the revenues (taxes) promised were in some part accounting trickery that didn't actually result in higher revenues. It was a spot of outrageously good luck for us and him that the Republicans were not able to take him up on that agreement due to pressure from Tea Party idiots.

I really hope that the Obama administration has wised up that austerity is a clusterfuck of failure. I have been disappointed by his right-ward leanings on the economy for the past 4 years such that I am not filled with hope and confidence, but I do cling to a shred of hope that rationality will win the day over stupidity and suffering.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:24 pm

erik wrote:I really hope that the Obama administration has wised up that austerity is a clusterfuck of failure.

Deficit reduction in a monetarily sovereign economy with almost zip inflation is strictly a centrist obsession. Like I said, conservatives support deficit reduction as a cudgel; I am absolutely positive that if Romney had won the nomination we would first be getting a stimulus bill (on top of reversing the spending cuts/tax raising), then after the 2014 elections we would have the Ryan Budget crammed down our throats and Obamacare reversed.

There's a reason why Hungary, Poland, and Greece's far-right wing are anti-austerity.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:16 pm

Republicans use Deficit reduction because they're trying to get rid of social security, so they want to 'starve the beast' it's been their tactic since social security started.

We're nowhere near the fiscal cliff. And it's irritating idiot hysteria. I don't think we should cut social security benefits at all, but I do think that raising the retirement age by 1-2 years is going to happen. It probably sucks, but it's going to happen.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:30 pm

What I hope happens is that the tax cuts on payroll taxes and those making a low income stay in place. What I think will happen is that those will end but the tax cuts for people making over 250K a year will stay in effect. This is an important test of Obama's leadership, if he fails it I hope the sincere progressives end up leaving or at least remaking the Democratic party.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:38 pm

Anyone who talks about raising the Social Security retirement age is engaging in class warfare where they want people in jobs with health risks to subsidize people who could afford high end medical care throughout their lives.

Tell those fuckers that the better solution would be to change the social security retirement age to be N years after the recipient entered the workforce. Thus the poor kids who dropped out of high school to support their family get to retire earlier, but if daddy put you through grad school, you have to either wait several more years before collecting that government check.

Or you could be an actual progressive and suggest that we do something sensible and remove the income limit on the Social Security tax and/or apply it to non-earned income. But if you're talking to the class warriors who are trying to kill working class retirees earlier, they'll just assume that's a libural plot to raise their taxes and tune those arguments out.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:43 pm

sabs wrote:Republicans use Deficit reduction because they're trying to get rid of social security, so they want to 'starve the beast' it's been their tactic since social security started.

Well, no shit, but what's especially galling is that even people who don't want to fuck the poor push austerity. Most centrist deficit hawks don't really want to get rid of SS/Medicare/veteran's aid/etc. but see it as destroying the village in order to save it.

but I do think that raising the retirement age by 1-2 years is going to happen. It probably sucks, but it's going to happen.

And if Obama allows that without offering some of the most extensive weregild of all time (like, single-payer health care, free college, and 75% top marginal rates) then he's a fucking idiot.

The first is that there's no need to do that at all. Like the debt ceiling, the Social Security 'fund' is a self-imposed limit. Regardless of the fact that even in the neoliberal view of the economy SS is more sound than it was 50 years ago, the United States is monetarily sovereign and can just frickin' hand out checks their own damn self.

The second is that ANY concession that takes money from the hands of the poor/middle class or cuts spending is going to hurt the economy worse. Yes, the Catfood Commission cuts are going to hurt the economy bad. But hey, it weakens the MIC and will slightly put a dent in income inequality. But more importantly the blood won't just be on Obama's hands. So even when the shit hits the fan and incumbents take in in the shorts it will not politically hurt Democrats as bad as if Obama offered a Grand Bargain and the economy went bust anyway. Even if the Grand Bargain ended up being less stringent on economic security.

The third is that it's just amazingly poor optics. Even if we were on the Gold standard and we were trying to tame 11% inflation with 9% unemployment, it's just a bad fucking move. Surely you were aware of the constant attacks Romney made of the Democratic party cutting Medicare by $700 billion. Even though the attacks were misleading and hypocritical and Democrats were careful to explain what was going on with that number, it hurt Obama anyway. See the Florida polls for perception on how the parties did on the Medicare issue after Paul Ryan was nominated as VP and then Romney lies.

Everyone can understand the Social Security retirement age going up from 65 to 67 though. And even the retarded neoliberal types won't be able to defend it.

Even if Obama can get a deal that's less of an austerity shock, if it involves political gotchas like that he should fucking reject it unless it comes with some of the most amazing liberal bribes in the history of the United States. The Erskine-Simpson deal is nowhere near bad as the Ryan budget, but it will absolutely destroy the morale and political strength of the Democratic party.

It would be like the Republican party of 2010 offering up a massive new gun control bill and extension of abortion rights in exchange for getting a capital gains tax cut and Iraq War extension. Whatever incidental or even absolute benefit they got from it would be meaningless because it would end up wrecking the party.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:44 pm

sabs wrote:I don't think we should cut social security benefits at all, but I do think that raising the retirement age by 1-2 years is going to happen. It probably sucks, but it's going to happen.

Please stop opining on this subject.

You know what would actually be better than raising the retirement age? Lowering the retirement age. Seriously, if you took a chunk of the working population and freed them to go to Boca or wherever, that would take their highly-experienced hands out of competition for jobs, demand for labor would spike, and the stimulative effect would go a long way toward righting the economy.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:50 pm

except none of those people could afford to retire. It's not like ANYONE can retire on social security. Unless you're willing to live in a cardboard box and not have medicine. Most of the citizenry will never be able to afford to retire at 60. Lowering the retirement age without raising benefits would be a terrible terrible idea.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:51 pm

Josh Kablack wrote:Or you could be an actual progressive and suggest that we do something sensible and remove the income limit on the Social Security tax and/or apply it to non-earned income.

I know that after the New Right and Reagan made liberal a dirty word and international media created some confusion over the term people use 'progressive' instead of 'liberal'.

But I hate that term. To me, Progressive means imperialist and/or eugenicist. I mean, I'll continue to refer to the kinda-left wing as progressive in 'polite' (read: non-Internet) company. But I'll do so with the same mindset in which I tell acquaintances that I'm against socialism or that I'm a Methodist, not an atheist.

sabs wrote:except none of those people could afford to retire. It's not like ANYONE can retire on social security. Unless you're willing to live in a cardboard box and not have medicine. Most of the citizenry will never be able to afford to retire at 60. Lowering the retirement age without raising benefits would be a terrible terrible idea.

Of course many people aged 60-65 are already unemployed and will not be getting decently-paying jobs anytime soon. Even if you can't directly increase the payout, reducing the retirement age can't make things worse. At the absolute worst it won't make a dent in employment or retirement, which means that we have the status quo.

K · Post by K » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:54 pm

The fiscal cliff is basically an illusion.

It consists of two parts:

1. The tax breaks that are set to end in 2013. These are an illusion because they are already set to end and it takes an agreement to extend them, but simply doing a new bill to just extend the middle and lower-end cuts puts the Republicans in a position where they vote against tax cuts.

So the question comes down to "do the Republicans want to be the party of tax-increases." Their full-throated defense of the ultra-rich can't save them when the tax cuts die naturally.

2. The automatic cuts to defense and social programs. Again, the advantage is Democrat because increasing the retirement age or amount going into Social Security is a thing that can be done without a lot of fallout, but those defense cuts are going suck if the Republicans get cast as the "party that cut defense spending."

On both issues, Obama has a gun to the head of the Republican Party. He's saying "Either do it my way, or I'll make it so that you can't even win elections in Red states/districts."

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:32 pm

Which is sort of hilarious, given that with the Tea Party/ultra-conservative holdovers, it's possible for a Republican to lose his seat to a primary challenger. That's how Richard "I Know How God Feels About Rape" Mourdock got in the race.

And we know how that one turned out.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:34 pm

K wrote:On both issues, Obama has a gun to the head of the Republican Party. He's saying "Either do it my way, or I'll make it so that you can't even win elections in Red states/districts."

I feel this fundamentally misunderstands modern conservatism. They don't really have issues they support or oppose: they have a tribal identity that they cling to.

It's Okay If You're A Republican (IOKIYAR) is a real phenomenon; the conservatives will forgive their own for far worse transgressions than they will condemn their opposition for. Because in the end it isn't about taxes, or defense, or small government; it's about getting 'those people,' the poorly-defined others who are 'not like you' and 'to blame for your problems.'

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:20 pm

K wrote:Again, the advantage is Democrat because increasing the retirement age or amount going into Social Security is a thing that can be done without a lot of fallout, but those defense cuts are going suck if the Republicans get cast as the "party that cut defense spending."

Now THAT I do not believe. The amount going into Social Security is pretty harmless once Congress pulls its head out of its ass, but the increase in retirement age is a real issue that will disproportionately hurt Democrats. It'll hurt the Democrats much more if they up end up making a brand spanking new deal that still has the SS cuts (see: Bowles-Simpson) rather than using the power of omission bias to do so. But it'll still hurt Democrats more.

K · Post by K » Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:15 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
K wrote:Again, the advantage is Democrat because increasing the retirement age or amount going into Social Security is a thing that can be done without a lot of fallout, but those defense cuts are going suck if the Republicans get cast as the "party that cut defense spending."
Now THAT I do not believe. The amount going into Social Security is pretty harmless once Congress pulls its head out of its ass, but the increase in retirement age is a real issue that will disproportionately hurt Democrats. It'll hurt the Democrats much more if they up end up making a brand spanking new deal that still has the SS cuts (see: Bowles-Simpson) rather than using the power of omission bias to do so. But it'll still hurt Democrats more.

How? The cuts are the Republican's side of the deal.

SO if the cuts come down, the Dems can smash the Republicans over the head with the "you cut Social Security."

K · Post by K » Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:18 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
K wrote:On both issues, Obama has a gun to the head of the Republican Party. He's saying "Either do it my way, or I'll make it so that you can't even win elections in Red states/districts."
I feel this fundamentally misunderstands modern conservatism. They don't really have issues they support or oppose: they have a tribal identity that they cling to.

It's Okay If You're A Republican (IOKIYAR) is a real phenomenon; the conservatives will forgive their own for far worse transgressions than they will condemn their opposition for. Because in the end it isn't about taxes, or defense, or small government; it's about getting 'those people,' the poorly-defined others who are 'not like you' and 'to blame for your problems.'

There is a reason why there are no moderate Republicans any more.

That's because tarring a Republican with "not Republican enough" is a death sentence in the party, and allowing defense cuts or raising taxes is totally not a Republican thing to do.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:20 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
K wrote:On both issues, Obama has a gun to the head of the Republican Party. He's saying "Either do it my way, or I'll make it so that you can't even win elections in Red states/districts."
I feel this fundamentally misunderstands modern conservatism. They don't really have issues they support or oppose: they have a tribal identity that they cling to.

It's Okay If You're A Republican (IOKIYAR) is a real phenomenon; the conservatives will forgive their own for far worse transgressions than they will condemn their opposition for. Because in the end it isn't about taxes, or defense, or small government; it's about getting 'those people,' the poorly-defined others who are 'not like you' and 'to blame for your problems.'

I think this isn't taking into account Tea Party anger at the establishment.

Any Republican is deathly afraid of cooperating with the Democrats because they could very well be seen as "One of them". Just like that. The Tea Party is so rabid they believe there is no issue on which Democrats are right.

So the Republicans have a crisis on their hands. Do they cooperate with the President and Democrats and risk the Tea Party furor, or do they keep voting as a block against anything Obama is for, and thus give rise to a huge bunch of "Republicans hate Obama more than they love America" attacks next election?

Cooperation is in their best interest, as a whole. Not every one of them would be replaced in a primary challenge. But Republicans kinda have a problem with a "take one for the team" mentality. Or a "do something that hurts us in the short-term to make it better down the road".

My money's on them going full-on Us-vs-Them panic. call it a 75% chance. In the other 25%, they actually do engage in actual good-faith negotiation and compromise.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:59 am

This is probably a stupid question, but assuming a bell-curve distribution of opinions along the ideological spectrum, how is it the case that voter turnout (which would I guess be the main thing that matters) is so much higher among Tea Party republicans than the more moderate ones? I understand that the 24-hour news cycle and abundance of bloggers and so on means that any deviance from the Tea Party line will be swiftly punished, but surely the majority of people to the right of the spectrum don't really care that much about the fact that a candidate forgot to wear his flag pin or tried to defend not murdering homeless people, given a standard bell curve. Is there a marked bulge on the graph towards the right, or does it come down to stuff like campaign finance, or what?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:20 am

K wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:
K wrote:Again, the advantage is Democrat because increasing the retirement age or amount going into Social Security is a thing that can be done without a lot of fallout, but those defense cuts are going suck if the Republicans get cast as the "party that cut defense spending."
Now THAT I do not believe. The amount going into Social Security is pretty harmless once Congress pulls its head out of its ass, but the increase in retirement age is a real issue that will disproportionately hurt Democrats. It'll hurt the Democrats much more if they up end up making a brand spanking new deal that still has the SS cuts (see: Bowles-Simpson) rather than using the power of omission bias to do so. But it'll still hurt Democrats more.
How? The cuts are the Republican's side of the deal.

SO if the cuts come down, the Dems can smash the Republicans over the head with the "you cut Social Security."

Because the Republicans are absolutely shameless. Paul Ryan campaigned against Obama for having "cut medicare" even though:

Obama hadn't cut medicare benefits to seniors, he had negotiated lower payments to hospitals.
Paul Ryan's own proposed budget included the same reduced medicare costs even though it explicitly rejected the ACA which had negotiated those lower hospital costs - meaning that unlike Obama, Paul Ryan actually had proposed reducing medicare benefits.

And while it was in fact public knowledge that Paul Ryan was lying his ass off when he attacked Obama over the medicare issue, that issue was still a win for the Republicans. Rmoney won with seniors, because a majority believed Ryan's lies that Obama had cut medicare and he wouldn't even though the opposite was true. Just because that makes no sense, doesn't mean it isn't the way things work.

Basically, the Republicans can cut social security and medicare at virtually no political cost, because they can he-said-she-said that it was actually the Democrat's fault. And when there's a Democratic president, they can and will campaign against the cuts they demanded and that will get them more votes. The Republicans are a deeply Orwellian party. Any time a piece of unpopular legislation gets through, they gain votes, even if they were the ones who demanded it in the first place. Especially if the legislation in question is unpopular with seniors. Because seniors watch a lot of Fox News.

Compromising with the Republicans by adding unpopular provisions or removing popular ones is completely a loss. See the ACA and removing the Public Option. Not only did that pick up zero Republican votes, it gave the Republicans political ammunition which they used to take control of the House and several state legislatures. And then they used those state legislatures to gerrymander the new census results so hard that they retained control of the House even after the major shellacking they got in the 2012 election.

-Username17