In response to:

Washington Post blasts Dems Budget

Whoknows Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 8:01 AM
I agree we need cuts, but to keep calling S.S. and medicare entitlements is ludicrous. We paid into them for years and properly handled would be in a lot better shape than they are. Why is there never any mention of cutting the perks of congress. I know it would not solve the problem, but they never sacrifice anything ever. I am truly sick of Democrats, that come to congress less than wealthy, but always leave more wealthy, than their pay should allow them to be.
Dan1313 Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 12:23 PM
Remember your history, FDR started Social Security as a means to raise taxes, without calling it a tax increase, to expand his social programs; consider: he deliberately set the age to collect benefits at 65 years of age, at a time when life expectancy was just 65, no one, or at the most, very few people were ever to collect benefits.

Sheila8 Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 9:36 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. That is the reason why, once elected, their main focus is to get reelected. Anything else is secondary.
Madlady Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 9:34 AM
Yes, S.S and Medicare have been paid by the working class but Washington can't keep their hands out of the pot. There has to be some type of reform to protect it for future Americans. Some of these programs, social security for example, are used by the old welfare recipient. This is why they are look upon as entitlement programs. S.S.I, is a replacement for welfare for the individual who doesn't work or for the most part has never worked. They pretend to have some mental and or physical inability to work. The government has to place these people someone. Another scam the American tax payer is forced to pay into.
wdwrkr Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 12:18 PM
"There has to be some type of reform to protect it for future Americans"

The best "protection" for future generations is to eliminate SS or, at very least, make participation optional.
gunowner Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 10:02 PM
ever hear of the lock box? it was a plan put forth a long time ago whereby S.S. fund would have been put off-limits of the grasping feds and invested. it would have been self-sustaining, even with the influx of the baby boomers, long ago. but noooo, here was a well of free money. any pol worth the name couldn't keep his paws out. so now you have I.O.U.'s. and the washington scum wonder why no one trusts them.
mwgCSM Wrote: Mar 18, 2013 12:12 AM
SS is a program that would have made Bernie Madoff so proud. The problem with SS began the day it was implemented. The lock box approch was a farse because every dime that is collected is immediately paid out to beneficiaries. It is a ponzi scheme of the grandest of scales. The reason they won't make reforms such as allowing individuals to opt out of participation is they need everyone in the system to pay the current benfit payments.

"In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for — or even a responsible public assessment of — the country’s long-term fiscal predicament."

Washington Post Editorial, March 14, 2013

Somebody must have realigned the planets.  That's the only explanation I can fathom for the harsh criticism the editors of the Washington Post unloaded on the Senate Democrats...