Liberals Have No Faith in the American People

I cannot believe that I’m stuck with only two talk radio stations in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Last Friday, NPR’s 9:00 AM show featured a segment on baking.  Well, that was it for me.  So, I turned the dial to WBT 1110 AM.  Keith Larson, master of the mundane, had taken the day off.  Jerry Klein, an old bitter hippie, was the guest host.  And as you can expect, he accused conservatives of being selfish pricks, who need to compromise their principles, and what little wealth they have, for the common good, as he sees fit.

Mr. Klein likes to address his audience as boys and girls.  That is how liberals see us common folk.  We are just a bunch of children that need to be shepherded and lectured on how to live, spend our money, and care for others.  And of course, who knows better on how to run our lives than an old hippie?

During Mr. Klein’s three hour lecture, I realized something.  I realized liberals have no faith in the goodness of the American people.  They don’t believe we will do the right thing for ourselves, our family, or our neighbors.  Liberals have faith in one thing only, and that is the general government.  Only by force of a bureaucrat will the American people do what is right.

Mr. Klein took a caller to task about social security and the welfare state.  He asked who would take care of the poor and elderly if not the government. The caller replied friends, family, neighbors and local churches.  That wasn’t good enough for the old hippie.  Klein insisted that the poor were left out in the streets while the bourgeoisie callously stepped over them.  Only the federal government had the heart to take care of the downtrodden.  I’ve got news for Mr. Klein, history states otherwise.

Before Progressives began their crusade against the U.S. Constitution, liberty, property, and the middle-class by implementing the welfare state; fraternal organizations and mutual aid societies helped the poor, not just by giving them a handout, but by giving them a hand up.  Here is an excerpt from Intellectual Takeout:

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."

These types of organizations originally opposed a government-run, government-funded welfare state because they viewed mutual aid as an expression of independence and personal responsibility. With dues from members, they provided services such as unemployment insurance, workers compensation, health insurance, life insurance, and sick pay. In many cases, a fraternal society would hire a doctor to care for the members' families giving them access to reliable, inexpensive healthcare. Additionally, these organizations established a privatized safety net through orphanages, hospitals, and homes for the elderly.

Liberals, like Jerry Klein, would have us believe Americans are callous and selfish.  They don’t see the inherent good in our history or our people.  If anything, their views are a reflection of their instincts and ideology.

Source:

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/from-mutual-aid-to-welfare-state

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/sociology-and-culture/poor-america-welfare-state

http://www.poorhousestory.com/history.htm

Social Security Apocalypse Coming in 2033

As long as I can remember, we’ve had Chicken Littles running around warning Social Security is about to collapse.  I’ve yet to read what’ll happen when this doomsday scenario comes.  Well, here it is and the coming apocalypse

 is 2033. 

We all know politicians have picked the lockbox and spent that money on pet projects.  Also, there are a record number of Americans on disability and probably some illegal aliens as well.  We should take heed, because when this entitlement ship hits the fiscal iceberg there is not going to be enough lifeboats to go around.  This Goodship Lollipop will suck everyone down.

 

The 2014 report projects depletion of the combined Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance trust funds in 2033. Social Security has no borrowing authority, and after the trust funds are exhausted there is only enough payroll tax revenue to cover a projected 77 percent of benefits; meaning future benefit payments must be reduced by about 23 percent. But the resulting cut in benefits will actually be much worse for retirees, workers and the economy if we don’t act now to reform Social Security.

In 2013, total benefit costs offset by taxes on those benefits, plus administrative expenses, came to $832 billion. Most, but not all, of this cost was covered by payroll taxes ($726 billion), with the balance substantially covered by interest ($103 billion) on money Congress “borrowed” from the trust funds — which means Social Security is currently adding to the deficit.

When the trust funds are depleted, the upcoming year’s benefits will be suddenly and immediately reduced by nearly $200 billion (in 2013 dollars), and not just for that year alone. The 23 percent haircut will persist indefinitely without legislative action. Gross Domestic Product includes government outlays, including spending on entitlement programs. Hence, less social security spending by definition results in a smaller GDP. Additionally, a sudden and large reduction of social security benefits would also result in less private consumption, since beneficiaries will have less money to spend, and this too would presumably result in an additional corresponding negative effect on GDP.

And does anyone believe these people will tolerate a reduction in benefits?  Of course not, our taxes will have to be raised and America will descend into a European style stupor.

H/T:

MuskegonPundit

Taxpayers' Entitlement Hill

H/T:
MuskegonPundit

CBO Director: Fix Entitlements or Raise Taxes on All Americans

And lets not forget all that "free" Medicaid money the federal government is doling out.

H/T:  Weasel Zippers

Incorrigible Wastrels Throw More Money Down D.C. Black Hole

The incorrigible wastrels in Washington D.C. have postponed this fiscal cliff in lieu of a higher one down the road.  And as usual these phantoms of irresponsibility used the dark of night on a holiday to mask their crimes.  Here is the booty our elected conspirators have managed to confiscate from the job creators, as reported by the Daily Caller: 

The cliff deal passed by the Senate would increase the 10-year baseline deficit of $2.9 trillion by $4 trillion, says the CBO in a report released Tuesday. That’s a nearly $7 trillion increase in debt by 2022.

The deal would increase the deficits during Obama’s second term by $1.7 trillion, in addition to the $1.7 trillion deficit already projected by the CBO, creating a four-year deficit of $3.4 trillion.

That $3.4 trillion in new debt by 2017 would increase the current federal debt from $16.4 trillion to almost $20 trillion in January 2017.

That’s an debt increase of almost $10 trillion during Obama’s two terms. The higher deficits would be primarily due to the extension of lower tax rates, known as the Bush-era rates, for individuals making under $400,000 and couples making under $450,000.

But hey, those evil rich people aren’t the only ones who’ll have to pony up.  The Social Security loophole has been closed as well.    

Both sides lamented their failure to reach a significant deficit-cutting agreement. But neither much mentioned another omission: The immediate expiration of a two-year, 2-percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax.

That break, which put an extra $1,000 in the wallets of typical families earning $50,000 a year, was an Obama priority two years ago as a way to boost consumer spending and spark the flagging economy, but it fell victim this time to other priorities.

It is being reported that this bill has a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. Only the gullible would believe Congress will cut spending.

Listen.  Listen real close.  Can you hear that huge sucking sound?  That’s your future being swallowed by that D.C. black hole.

Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/01/01/3759999/not-solved-yet-gop-wants-more.html#storylink=cpy

  http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/01/senate-cliff-deal-would-push-debt-to-20-trillion-by-2017/#ixzz2GoT61aTN

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/31/Fiscal-cliff-deal-41-1-in-tax-increases-to-spending-cuts-ratio

Record High Numbers of Americans Collecting Social Security Benefits

This is probably the scariest statistic I’ve seen.  We almost have more people on the public dole than we have private sector workers.  This doesn’t bode well.

(CNSNews.com) - The Social Security program ran a $47.8 billion deficit in fiscal 2012 as the program brought in $725.429 billion in cash and paid $773.247 for benefits and overhead expenses, according to official data published by Social Security Administration.

The Social Security Administration also released new data revealing that the number of workers collecting disability benefits hit a record 8,827,795 in December--up from 8,805,353 in November.

The overall number of Social Security program beneficiaries—including retired workers, dependent family members and survivors and disabled workers and their dependent family members—also hit a record in December, climbing from 56,658,978 in November to 56,758,185 in December.

In 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was an average of 112.556 million full-time workers in the United States, of whom 17.806 million worked full-time for local, state or federal government. That left an average of only 94.750 million full-time private sector workers in the country.

That means that for every 1.67 Americans who worked full-time in the private sector in 2011, there is now 1 person collecting benefits from the Social Security administration.

Wow.  This is unsustainable.

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/social-security-ran-478b-deficit-fy-2012-disabled-workers-hit-new-record-december

Obama and Congress Puts Another Nail in Social Security Coffin

The road to serfdom is paved with good intentions and Congress swiftly laid down the Grecian asphalt this afternoon. Today they extended the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. This legislation would add $85 billion to the budget deficit, and deplete the Social Security “trust fund” of $93 billion through 2022.

WASHINGTON Congress swiftly approved legislation Friday renewing a payroll tax cut for 160 million American workers and jobless benefits for millions more, backing the main items on President Barack Obama's jobs agenda in a rare burst of Washington bipartisanship.

The Senate approved the $143 billion measure on a 60-36 vote minutes after the House approved it by a sweeping 293-132 vote. Obama is expected to sign it shortly after returning from a West Coast fundraising swing.

On Friday in an appearance at a Boeing factory in Everett, Wash., Obama gave lawmakers a verbal fist bump.

"It is amazing what happens when Congress focuses on doing the right thing instead of just playing politics," Obama said. "This was a good example, and Congress should take pride in it."

Only 41 democrats and 91 republicans voted against this bill in the House of Representatives; the Senate 5 democrats and 31 republicans. These defectors should be commended for not raiding the treasury for what is obviously a give away to buy votes. Of course, there are some whose intentions were not so honorable.

Social Security is projected to run at a deficit. The Great Recession has taken its toll on revenues. Business Insider explains our dire situation:

Looking at the data on this basis, you'll see the actual deterioration that took place in 2011.

2012 will be worse than 2011. Benefits are going to jump by $50B+ next year. 10,000 new people are signing up for checks every day of the week. Add the fact that every one of the 55mm beneficiaries will be getting 3.6% more in their checks (COLA adjustment). The revenue side is a wild card. What will GDP be? If it's around the 2% that is currently anticipated, revenues at SSA will fall well below plan. A flat economy (+2%) would translate into a $100B 2012 primary deficit (payroll receipts minus benefits). A number like that is not on anyone’s radar today.

It definitely isn’t on the D.C. Swamp Monster’s radar. They just depleted Social Security even more by extending the tax cut. But when the crisis comes to ahead in a few short years, even raising “revenues” will be impossible to cover the obligations promised by pandering politicians. Business Insider continues:

The 2011 numbers for SSA indicate that we are at least five years ahead of existing thinking on the SSA deficits. When this realization sinks in, it will break the hearts of the SS defenders. If we are, as I contend, five to six years ahead of “schedule” with cash deficits at SSA, there is no alternative besides cutting scheduled benefits. Raising taxes to fill a hole this big is not an option. Nor is it an option to maintain the status quo and allow for a very rapid rundown of the SS Trust Fund.

If we are going to experience what I believe we will, then the cumulative SS cash shortfall over the next decade will add ANOTHER $1.5 trillion onto Public Sector Borrowing ("PSB"). (A shift from the Intergovernmental account into the PSB account; AKA the Chinese). This increase in PSB more than offsets the $1.2 T of cuts that the congressional super committee failure has just mandated.

The consequences of SS (and similarly the other government retirement funds) on PSB over the coming years is not now being considered by those looking at America’s debt profile. It will be soon enough. The current thinking is that SS is a problem that can be worried about in another ten years or so. That's simply not true.

And this payroll tax cut upped the ante.

Source: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-06/home/30481042_1_adjustments-ssa-payroll-tax-revenue#ixzz1mh24skO4


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/16/3018891/house-speaker-says-payroll-tax.html#storylink=cpy


http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/17/10435191-congress-passes-payroll-tax-cut-extension

Obama Panders to Moocher Class

Barack Obama gave his weekly address yesterday, and of course it was filled with demagoguery and class warfare. Now, the fight is extending to payroll taxes. The commander-in-thief is pandering to the moocher class through the reduction of their social security obligations.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans in Congress don’t seem to share that same sense of urgency. Over the last few months, they’ve said “no” to most of these jobs bills. “No” to putting teachers and firefighters back to work. “No” to putting construction workers back on the job. And this week, they actually said “no” to cutting taxes for middle-class families.

You see, last year, both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the typical middle-class family by about $1,000. But that tax cut is set to expire at the end of this month. If that happens, that same family will see its taxes go up by $1,000. We can’t let that happen. In fact, I think we should cut taxes on working families and small business owners even more.

And we’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen. They shouldn’t go home for the holidays until they get this done. And if you agree with me, I could use your help.

For many Americans, this in the only skin they have in the game. As of now, the payroll deductions are set at 4.2 percent; down from 6.2 percent. The democrats want to further reduce it to 3.1 percent; this at a time when entitlement programs are running in the red.

Earlier this year it was reported that 47 percent of Americans did not pay any federal income taxes. Their sole contributions were through payroll taxes. Soon -- if the democrats get their way -- they won’t even pay that.


Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/12/03/weekly-address-extending-and-expanding-payroll-tax-cut#transcript

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12/04/2823740/expand-payroll-tax-cut-but-pay.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm

Obama is Scaring Seniors and Loving It!

Barack Obama, The Demagogue in Chief, dusted off one of the Democratic Party’s oldest tricks in their worn out playbook:  scaring seniors.  Yep, it was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.  And of course CBS News was a willing accomplice.  News Anchor Scott Pelley asked the Messiah if Social Security checks would be issued after the August 3^rd debt ceiling deadline.  Here was the response from Dear Leader:

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

This assertion is a complete fallacy.  CNSNews reported the following:

However, according to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel).

Specifically, according to the Daily Treasury Statements, as of the close of business on May 16, the federal government had taken in $1.333454 trillion in tax revenues since the beginning of fiscal 2011. By the close of business on July 7, tax revenues for fiscal 2011 had grown to $1.629630 trillion. Therefore, between May 16 and July 7 the federal government took in a total of $296.176 billion in new tax revenue.

Wow!  Exxon/Mobile would be envious of those tax-free record profits.  Oh, wait a minute…the federal government doesn’t produce anything, nor do they make profits.  But they sure as hell do a good job of scaring senior citizens.  I guess that is one marketing technique that can’t be duplicated by the private sector.

A new movie should be made:  Barack Obama Scaring Seniors and Loving It.

Source:  http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/official-treasury-reports-coffers-full-e

Victim Politics Has Arrived!

It sure didn’t take long for the left to start playing victim politics. An ad targeting Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina portrays a woman named Agnes, who is a librarian with a torn rotator cup, pleading that the meanie from the Palmetto State not raise the retirement age for social security.

I’m sorry Agnes, but I’m going to have to rain on your pity party. If you can’t do your job, then you can apply for workman’s compensation. Agnes is lucky that she can do this. Unlike contractors who are forced to pay into the system and by law can’t collect. How perverse is that Agnes? I guess the small business owner is screwed again.

I know of a deck builder, who has for the past 14 years been working with unbelievable pain. He pops painkillers and Goody’s aspirin and still works his ass off. And believe me Agnes, pretreated lumber is a hell of a lot heavier than a book; and I’ve never heard of him complaining about his social security. As a matter of fact, what he does complain about is how much money he has to pay the IRS. I guess that is the difference between a small business owner and a government employee.

H/T:  Carolina Politics Online

Democrats Have "Final Solution" for Entitlement Programs

Social Security was created in 1935. The age of eligibility was at the time 65. Life expectancy for males was 58.1 and for females it was 61.6 years of age. The federal government from the very beginning was banking on its citizens to die off before they could collect. To their chagrin, people are living longer than what was anticipated. Now, the fund is running red and the geniuses on Capitol Hill are trying to figure out a way to stop the bleeding.

Today the Social Security benefit retirement age is 66 for people born from 1943 to 1954; those born in 1960 or later will get full benefits at age 67. Now, our elected representatives want to raise the retirement age to 70 in an effort to keep the New Deal program viable. They are basically hoping that you will not live long enough to collect.

The baby boomer generation is the most selfish generation that this nation has had the misfortune to give birth too. It is they who have implemented disastrous government programs and spending that will burden future generations to come.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) stated the following:

“We’re lying to ourselves and our children if we say we can maintain our current levels of entitlement spending, defense spending and taxation without bankrupting our country,” he said.

“We could and should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to life span, more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a stronger safety net for the Americans who need it the most.”

Well, what do you know, a moment of lucidity from one of the chief spendthrifts on Capitol Hill.

Don’t worry; the Democrats are engineering a more “progressive” system to deal with the aged and infirm. The appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick, who believes in rationing health care, has a “final solution” for those pesky seniors who refuse to die. Dr. Death will ensure the survival of the entitlement programs; even if you don’t.

The Strange Case of Barack Obama's Social Security Number

The weird case of Barack Obama is just getting stranger by the minute. Now he is accused of using multiple social security numbers; all not belonging to him. And the Lamestream media refuses to touch it. The following article is published by WorldNetDaily:



By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

"Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office," the Social Security website explains. "The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number."

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president's history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

"I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don't live, but there's usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state," Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

"Yes," he replied. "In the case of President Obama, I really don't know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii."

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.


To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama's were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

"There is obviously a case of fraud going on here," Daniels maintained. "In 15 years of having a private investigator's license in Ohio, I've never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly."

The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

"Never," Daniels said. "It's against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued."

Daniels said she is "staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama's use of this Social Security number is fraudulent."

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson's affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, "it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence."

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

"I doubt this is President Obama's originally issued Social Security number," she told WND. "Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii."

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama's inauguration.

Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

"It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins," she insisted. "Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime."

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama's birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama's birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can't be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama's association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.