You seemed to be delineating a difference between SS and what you are calling welfare by suggesting you are entitled to your SS because you "paid in", but folks getting welfare are just taking charity. It is wrong to pretend SS isn't welfare. It is. It is also wrong to suggest that everyone on welfare is taking "charity" and giving nothing back. In point of fact, huge numbers of people on assistance are working and paying taxes just like everyone else. That was the point of my response.

They surely are welfare. And you didn't pay for yours, you paid for others. Your kids and grand-kids are paying for yours. Isn't welfare great? So if welfare causes poverty, let us get rid of it all.

PS - You're wrong about immigrants; legal immigrants, certainly, and even illegal immigrants, who pay billions into SS.

Power vacuums get filled.  If you want to prevent a dictatorship you might elect a Congress that passes a few laws, or maybe a budget or two.

So far I've been called a parasite on this board because of my chosen profession (which in an ironic twist I chose for its altruistic elements).  i can only imagine the invective when i say that I very, very grudgingly support her for POTUS.

The supposed "felonies" that Conservatives have been crowing about remind me of the Obama birther nonsense.  The situation vis a vis the Clinton Foundation was a legal as it was distasteful.  The Email scandal is a reminder of her extreme arrogance.  I'll never forget her "coming under fire in Bosnia". I don't like her one bit.

All that said, she was once a force in the White House.  I suspect she has a keen sense of what can be done and what can't.  She served as Senator in New York to wide praise from her colleagues on both sides of the aisle.  Please don't tell me it didn't happen, I recall it at the time with some amazement.  She served as Secretary of State.  You will all say that she was a huge failure, but I recall her at the time praised by a number of world leaders, again to my own incredulity.  At least we didn't go to war on her watch.

The problem is anyone with any record in public service will have bad things in their past.  It is utterly unavoidable.  That's where Trump gets ahead, he has no record of public service.  Obama's was so limited that no one could really point to anything he'd done wrong, he wasn't in it long enough to do anything wrong.

Trump has no idea what can and can't be done in the Oval office.  None.  He is frighteningly naive.  He is also quite bright, and could probably figure it out.  But there would be lots of teething pain.  Sanders can be described likewise.  Most of his plans smack of fantasy, and are not likely to get through a divided Congress.  Kaisich is the best of the bunch which is sad, because he'll not get the nomination.  That, and I hate him as governor.

And then there's Hillary.  Arrogant, nearly reptilian.  And enormously capable of doing the job.  Married to the best ex-president we have.  Maybe we'll get Bill for Secretary of State.  Wouldn't that be a hoot.

Well, I was talking about the deficit, sorry... US budget deficit, so I thought it kind of obvious that it would be about raising tax revenue. There are differing ways to raise tax revenue and among them is raising tax rates. It is likely that any real solution would incorporate raising tax rates as well as a host of other schemes. We have a lot of debt to pay down.

Let me see I have this right. The media, educational institutions and the government have brain washed half of America with poisonous ideas with nefarious intent of destroying America and the other half of America just knows what is right and true. So if we want a united people, we just need to force the media, the educational institutions and all the branches of government to espouse only what is right and true, then the misguided half of the country will come around and join the "right" side of the country.

"Special interest" groups seem to be the boogie man to people until it's one of their special interests, then it's a collective voice on capitol hill speaking for the people. Why would people need these groups in the first place? Now I see how unification works for conservatives, just get everyone on the left to think as they do and we'll all be unified. No compromise required. 

Since the beginning of this country, there have been people on the left and people on the right. The founding fathers fought and argued all the time. It is believed that the majority of the people in the colonies in revolutionary times took the conservative position of sticking with the king and remaining royal subjects of the crown. It is those that we hold dear now that were the lefty progressives of that era. What a radical and dangerous idea, that people should have a say in government!!

I agree that the media and particularly the internet, has amplified and increased the intensity of our opinions. They do this because there is good money in conflict. Ultimately though, it is the people that choose to be divided. If there were no TV, radio, newspaper, or internet, we would still have differences of opinion, but likely be much closer together as our positions wouldn't be so extreme and inflexible. There are millions of people in the country like this now. They avoid politics and the political media out there and they are much more open to other ideas. They are those annoying swing voters, or worse yet, those that don't vote at all.

How in the world that a single individual is supposed emerge and overcome the power of the media and all the rhetoric to bring the country together is beyond me. A very tall order for a mere mortal that was placed in that position by practitioners of partisan politics in the first place.