On Language: Conservative Framing

In this blog, I often talk about conservative framing. One of their brilliant strategies was to relabel what had become expected government services as "entitlements" (see David Brook's op ed today). Should we really think of social security, a system we all pay in to, as an "entitlement?" Given the fact that the economy has been kept afloat primarily by deficit spending at the individual and governmental level, and thus "negative savings," for years -- isn't social security our only bastion from returning to the pre-Great Depression situation of most elderly people being poor? Regarding, Medicare and Medicaid, most countries in the developed world have much larger socialized medicine programs -- should we just ignore the elderly and poor, and allow them to drop dead in the streets, just upping the number of street cleaners we hire?  And unless I'm stuck in a dream, didn't we just pass a watered down healthcare bill that attempts to deal with the skyrocketing costs to famililes and businesses (and the even larger strain to come)? It is clear that the current level of deficit spending is unsustainable, but why does the discussion never go to the obvious -- raising taxes for those at the top who have benefited the most from the new world order? Given the success of Republicans in making "taxes" as bad a word as "liberal," I guess the answer is evident.