In the old days we would not even be discussing

[Angry Dragon]

whether Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid should be radically changed.

And if any changes were being discussed we would have been told by now what changes were being talked about.

This behind closed doors is a bunch of shit. These things belong to the American people and do not belong to the politicians to be doled out on their whims.

Open the damn doors and let us see ......... Is that too much to ask??

edit: took out 'the'

[MADem]

1. If that shit ever gets "on the table" you will have a chance to "see."

You'll see it on CSPAN, when it comes up for debate before the House and Senate. Then you'll know where people stand...or sit.

You can't change law behind closed doors. This is just the posturing/yelling/dealmaking phase where lines are drawn. It's not even the START line of this race--it's more like the locker room bullshitting and towel snapping.

[Angry Dragon]

5. You mean like the shit that happened back in December

when Obama sat down and negotiated the other budget deal and then told congress to pass it??

Here is a question for you:
Would you want Obama as your lawyer defending you on a murder charge??

[MADem]

12. I'd prefer Hillary. Obama's expertise is in Constitutional Law.

Budgets come and go (every year, in fact). We never seem able to start the FY on time; we always go at least one quarter on the continuing resolution emergency tank. Why? Because CONGRESS--not Obama--spends all their time whining about what used to be called EARMARKS, but since they aren't doing EARMARKS any more, they're whining about oddball paragraphs in a tome the size of ten phone books that have the SAME EFFECT as earmarks.

Congress passed that budget, not Obama. Obama signed it.

This is 4th Grade civics.

Put the blame where it belongs--if there's any blame to be had (and that is not at all clear at this stage, despite the crying and hair-pulling I am seeing here). Congress makes law, not the President. The President can exhort, bully, and threaten, but he does not make law. He signs them into law. Checks and balances, it's all about checks and balances. Stop making this the Obama Show. It's not. There are five hundred plus other clowns who are in on this deal as well, and We The People put them at the table to do the horse trading on this issue.

It's just too easy to tilt at a bogeyman, I guess. Not productive, not accurate....but easy. We're always happiest when we have someone to BLAME.

[Angry Dragon]

15. Did or did not Obama sit down with the republicans and

come out of the room with a deal??

And then did he not pass it on to congress to pass it??

I do understand how the three branches work.
I also understand it is hard to go against the leader of your party
when he says this is what he wants.

Is this the way it happened or not??

[MADem]

24. He wasn't the only Dem at the table.

I mean, come on--what is it with people who think he's our Fairy Godfather? He's one guy. There are many competing priorities.

You can't always get what you want.

[TexDevilDog]

2. You want open and transparent government?

Elect some that will promise that.

:rofl:

[Angry Dragon]

9. OKAY

:headbang:

[bemildred]

3. All Obama has to do is say: "Social Security and Medicare are off the table",

and all this will be done, yes?

[Angry Dragon]

11. I wish he would...........

[MADem]

13. And the GOP will say, "Fuck you 'Barry"--CONGRESS makes law, not YOU."

Obama can say that till he's blue in the face to make you happy, but he doesn't have the authority to "make it so."

[Angry Dragon]

14. Then make them say it ........... make them own it

[MADem]

23. They'll own it IF they pass a law of that nature. IF. nt

[bemildred]

18. And then we kick their asses out in the street.

And how come us "freaking out" is bad, but freaking out about us "freaking out" is good?

[kctim]

28. Because, if things are as the OP states

and everything is happening behind 'closed doors,' you are 'freaking out' over what you THINK is happening, not what is ACTUALLY happening.

[boppers]

4. In the old days Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid did not exist.

The proposed changes are being discussed, but it's hard to hear them over Henny Penny's warnings.

[Dr Fate]

6. Some people just dont trust so called centrists anymore.

we have no reason to believe "proposed changes" will be for the better at all.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. They have existed all my life.

This is the first time in my life that they have ever become part of the budget process. Pardon me if I think these are programs worth protecting.

[Angry Dragon]

8. Just some dates for you

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

The Social Security Act of 1965 was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to existing Social Security legislation. This legislation included the establishing of the Medicare program. At the bill-signing ceremony, Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card, and Truman's wife Bess, the second.<1>

Medicaid was created on July 30, 1965, through Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Each state administers its own Medicaid program while the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) monitors the state-run programs and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. When was SS put in place? WELL BEFORE my birth

And medicare went in place the year I was born.

SO yes, we can talk old days... and no, I don't trust third way, centrist, whatever new name you want to use, anymore... poison really.

[beanwire]

10. I'm not the old days

And I'm not entirely certain why we should have a program run by the states and a program run by the feds and funded by all.

I've been on the fence about my personal Social security benefits since I started working at 16 in 1999 and I take no umbrage with having my personal benefits suffer long term if it mean the health of the union and the health of my parents.

First came the Tea Party, cursing what they saw a changes opposed to what they think they deserve. Secondly, now, comes the responses of their counter-weight, those who think they've been promised.

And the behind closed doors will continue to be a load of crap until enough people start reading and understanding and arguing and talking and FINDING COMMON GROUND on what can be permissible and what cannot before the great wealth of the retirees has over-runneth the darn cup. And maybe their children will start addressing the issues of what they find permissible for the sake of there forebearers

And maybe I'm young-ish but I'm tired of these absolutes while I've been living in doubt for enough time now to realize that my parents aren't going to figure it all out.

[TheKentuckian]

16. One day you might see that everyone isn't looking for common ground, or to make a fair deal, or

or to do the right thing, nor do all care anything for the good of your parents or our country.

The bestowed altruism is a mistake in thinking.

[beanwire]

19. I do that

and I lose hope in humanity, thanks but I'll pass. It's odd to say it, but sometimes communities rise to the challenge that challenges them all.

[TheKentuckian]

26. I suggest that to acknowledge the reality that their are some elements that

have destructive, self motivated, or counter productive aims for the common good is to not build your faith on a foundation of sand.

History is full of unrepentant assholes and some real evil, pretending they do not and cannot exist is not faith in people but willful ignorance that spits in the eye of reality.

[EFerrari]

17. What "great wealth of retirees"? Do you mean,

the money retirees PAID INTO Social Security?

[beanwire]

22. Yes, but

I mean preserving for them at the sake of what I have not expected. Forgoing potential benefits for myself, while maintaining my present commitment . What you think I'd sooner cut anything that would help you/your parents/someone else parents? I'd sooner move in with my parents if it'd help them maintain their own freedom from worry and fear. I'd live a migrant dream if it meant that they could have sanctity of mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. How about keeping both? Their present freedom

and YOUR FUTURE freedom. It is possible you know .That is the dream... not you giving up YOUR FUTURE freedom.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. One correction, yes, yes they did, in the 1980s

for history sake.

When they did do that during the Reagan Presidency there was quite a bit of angst as well.

I think we are justified in the angst, but yes... people have talked about reforms before.

[NNN0LHI]

27. There were changes that were considered radical in 1973

The creation of SSI for instance. We could have never achieved that without a healthy economy and a lot of unions pushing for its passage.

Don

[kctim]

29. In the "old days"

those were insurance programs, NOT retirement or healthcare plans.