Washington Post Shocked

[GURPS (Premo)]

Washington Post Shocked to Discover Obama's Approach Not Balanced


Just how out of balance is the President's balanced approach? Enough that the Washington Post has written not one but two editorials demanding that entitlement reform be included the mix. The first piece, two weeks ago, was unequivocal: "Any serious debt-reduction plan has to include revenue and defense cuts. But no serious one can exclude entitlements."

But it appears the President and his party are planning to kick the can down the road. Greg Sargent reported Tuesday that union leaders held a private meeting with the President. One attendee described the President's expectations as follows: "They expect taxes to go up on the wealthy and to protect Medicare and Medicaid benefits."

While the union bosses are apparently celebrating this good news, the Washington Post editorial board is sounding more and more like a Republican presidential candidate:

Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs.

Mitt Romney couldn't have said it any better. But the Post goes even farther, quoting a promise of serious reform Obama made directly to the editorial board circa 2009:

"What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said then. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”

[JoeRider]

The Post is getting too conservative. I need to drop my subscription.

[limblips (Premo)]

I am still trying to get my mind around the term "entitlement" when talking of SS and Medicare. Is it really an entitlement for the people that have paid in or is it more realistically an investment return?

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by limblips

Is it really an entitlement for the people that have paid in or is it more realistically an investment return?

someone else posted recently SSI is not a "Pay and Save" like a 401k or even a savings account - in the 80's when payouts were still less them payouts, the system plied up a huge stock of cash - Congress then Spent leaving IOU's - SSI was never designed to 'store' money for retirement - what comes in now from those of us working, gets paid out ... this is where the insolvency comes it - sooner rather than later, more people are going to be drawing out, then paying in


and the only way to cover the shortfall is higher taxes - and / or withholding from those still working

[SamSpade]

As I understand it, something is an entitlement if you qualify under the rules they set up. As such, they cannot budget it - if they owe you for it, they pay it. They cannot say - sorry, over budget, no more money.

[jetmonkey]

It's called a pyramid scheme, or Ponzi scheme, and they are illegal. Unless you are the government. Then they are legal

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by limblips

I am still trying to get my mind around the term "entitlement" when talking of SS and Medicare. Is it really an entitlement for the people that have paid in or is it more realistically an investment return?

There are a LOT of people recieving SSI payments for various reasons that haven't paid into the system