Here is an example of hyper-criticism from the Right.

The Daily Mail reported:

Middle-class workers will take a bigger hit to their income proportionately than those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 under the new fiscal cliff deal, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Earners in the latter group will pay an average 1.3 percent more – or an additional $2,711 – in taxes this year, while workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will see their paychecks shrink by as much as 1.7 percent – or up to $1,784 – the D.C.-based think tank reported.

Overall, nearly 80 percent of households will pay more money to the federal government as a result of the fiscal cliff deal.

‘The economy needs a stimulus, but under the agreement, taxes will go up in 2013 relative to 2012 – not only on high-income households, as widely discussed, but also on every working man and woman in the country, via the end of the payroll tax cut,’ said William G. Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center.

‘For most households, the payroll tax takes a far bigger bite than the income tax does, and the payroll tax cut therefore – as [the Congressional Budget Office] and others have shown – was a more effective stimulus than income tax cuts were, because the payroll tax cuts hit lower in the income distribution and hence were more likely to be spent,’ he added.

Editor's notes:  to put it bluntly,  this is a garbage criticism  from the Right.  I am a Right Winger.  I never supported Obama's reduction of the FICA tax,  that part of the payroll tax that supports Social Security.  It should have never happened.

And Conservatives should have raised the roof over this "payroll deduction relief."  

As it turns out,  collections from the payroll tax have failed to cover annual expenses for Social Security beginning in 2010 and extending through 2012  . . . . . the same period of time Obama's reductions have been in effect.

You simply cannot find harsher stated criticism without trash talking filth,  than is found on this blog  ---  but this particular criticism is Right Wing hyper crap.  Returning to  pre-2009 levels on FICA payroll deductions is the only reasonable course of action.   If this is an Obama idea,  re-implementing the full FICA tax,  it is the right thing to do.  

Obama's initial reduction as to this payroll tax,  was irresponsible,  from the beginning.  The FICA tax is the only source of debt-free money into Social Security coffers and Social Security was carrying 17 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities,  at the time our presidential fiscal genius decided to buy more votes via this payroll reduction.  

Point of post?  Ain't it obvious? 

Seriously, how much should be cut in terms of expense? We have the answer as we ask two questions.

 <<<  Sorry folks,  the fiscal cliff disaster has past the point of no return, regardless of whatever the headlines of this week say. 

The Democrats love to ask this question:  "If the GOP is not going to raise taxes on the rich,  how are they going to pay for the money lost in that move?"   You should know that the Bush tax cuts for the rich,  totaled a nominal $700 billion dollars over the course of ten years.

I have a better question and it is the Democrats who should be asked  (as in "hounded) this question:  "If you are not going to raise taxes on the middle class,  how are you going to pay for that 'lost' income ?"  Understand that the Bush cuts to the middle class totaled 3.8 trillion dollars. 

Point of post:  Here is the critical  fact central to effective spending cuts:  if the congress is not talking about cutting 4.5 trillion dollars over the course of the next ten years,  it are lying to the American people and setting the American citizenry up for one of the worst financial disaster in world history and, that is not hyperbole.   

That "4.5 trillion" number comes from adding the totals in tax savings for the "rich"  and Obama's version of the "middle class."  If the question is legitimate when asked about 'lost' income from the rich,  it certainly is legitimate when asked about lost income from the middle class.  While the Dems have busied themselves buying votes ad infinitum ,  their long term intentions are to wait on the necessary cuts to Social Security and Medicare until the ceiling caves in around us,  and,  in that event,  they are hoping to have positioned themselves to continue their blame game,  and turn the coming disaster into a serious electionary plus for them.   

Understand that beginning in 2009,  expenses for Social Security have exceeded collections.  In 2011,  that deficit was in excess of nearly 47 billion dollars (jds-midknightreview / remember-obama-and-dems-telling) .  In other words,  Social Security is already broke and,  apparently,  readers of this Review are the only folks on the face of God's green earth who are aware of this fact.  

As far as Medicare is concerned,  it now totals 42 trillion in unfunded liabilities.  

To illustrate just how out of control this program is,  consider this fact:   when we take all of the world's economies,  some 220 countries,  they require a collective grand total of around 68 trillion dollars per year to operate their programs and support their national needs.  Medicare totals 2/3's of all the world's economies combined.  And, still,  the self-serving, socialist grounded unions in this country and their Democat/Progressive leadership refuses to admit that there is any kind of problem at all.  

As of the 2012 election, we now have an electorate that cares not for the facts of this matter.  They don't care,  because they believe that they will be allowed to further gut the system without penalty as they follow the lead of Progressive leadership,  and continue to decimate the business community in this country. 

Sadly,  there may no cure for selfish and stupid,  when the two are combined for the purpose of gaining a political edge.  

__________________

After it is all said and one,  we cannot cut or tax our way to safety.  This article in Forbes,  gives us a clear picture why the "tax and cut" will not work,  if it stands alone and the "solution."  

Remember Obama and the Dems telling us "Social Security is fine?" Or this knee slapper: "Social Security is 'solid' for the next 20 years?" So, how come it couldn't pay its bill for the passed three years AND, how come no one bothered to tell us before the election ???!!!

The last time the Social Security program ran a “net cash flow” surplus was in fiscal 2009. In that year, Social Security’s revenues exceeded its benefit and overhead payments by $19.358 billion. In fiscal 2010, Social Security ran a $36.8 billion deficit; and, in fiscal 2011, it ran a $47.975 deficit.

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.  CNS News.

Should we consider Medicare and Social Security as "entitlements?" Of course and here is why -- no Amercian even comes close to paying for these benefits.

Entitlements:  feeding off the public trough.

47 million folks receive food stamps.  For the most part, they neither pay for nor work for this benefit.

Disability enrollment now extends to more than 8.8 million Americans.  While part of the Social Security contract,  most of this coat is unearned by those who are in need of its benefit.

By presidential degree,  unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks for millions of Americans.  This benefit is paid for by employer "donations" and federal expense,  NOT by the recipients.

Medicare is being used to enroll the indigent poor under ObamaCare,  certain disabled youth,  and seniors who qualify for Social Security.  The program is 37 trillion dollars in arrears,  which means that it is essentially an unfunded program although there are  small payroll deductions paid on future Medicare benefits throughout the working lifetime of the citizen.    The average total donation make by potential Medicare benefactors is 30% of what they will receive.  Medicare is,  indeed,  an entitlement,  righteous indignation of the redistributionists,  not withstanding. 

Understand under ObamaCare,  as many as 30 million folks (illegals, the very poor and youth) will be added to Medicare beginning with 2013 at the same time federal funding to that program will be cut by 2%.  

Finally for the sake of this post,  we have Social Security.  The average payout for a retire couple,  with regard to this particular benefit,  will be in the neighborhood of 1 million dollars (per couple).  Obviously,  the average working couple pays nothing close to this benefit total. 

Understand that if an "entitlement" is something you receive from the feds that you have not paid for as a worker bee,  all of the above fits into this category. 
  

Obama on debate night: "Social Security is structurally sound." Anyone know why he said that ??!!

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said in Wednesday night’s presidential debate that Social Security is “structurally sound,” but Social Security’s Board of Trustees said in their 2012 annual report that the program faced $8.6 trillion in “unfunded obligations”–meaning that it is currently obligated to pay out $8.6 trillion more in benefits than it is anticipated to bring in through taxes.

Editor’s notes:  I know,  the SS Board of Trustees says the unfunded obligation is 8.6 trillion,  but the number having been used for the past several years is closer to 17 trillion.  Whatever the actual amount,  we are talking about “trillions,”  with 10,000 Baby Boomers coming into the program every single day,  for the next 12 years  [there are 78 million of us,  coming to “break the  SS bank.”].  And Obama is telling those who listen to him and believe that he knows what he is talking about,  that Social Security is “structuring sound.”  

If Romney had made this statement,  the Progressive Jihadists would have called Romney a "liar." In fact,  the Obama campaign has decided to double  down on the "liar" theme,  when it comes to Romney.    I guess they think this sort of thing scores points.  

Understand that it is one thing for a blog like this,  to use such terms,  but Independents are "turned off" by the the use of such language.   And,  it is the Independent vote that looms important,  in the coming election.  

As of this year, new retirees will take out of Social Security less than what they put in.

Click on image to enlarge

<<<<<  This chart gives us only one feature of the problem --  revenues to annual outlays.  It does not present the pillage of both Medicare and Social Funds from the very beginning of their inventions until now.   

In a Yahoo news story, here,   we are being given the bad news;  new retirees will not recover their "investment" cash put into Social Security.

Contrast this news,  with the idiocy of this early May report:

Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?   Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus.  Refer to Reuters, here:  http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/05/04/social-security-is-not-going-broke/

Who is telling us the truth?  The Democrat Progressives who wrote the Yahoo article or the Democrat Progressives who want you to believe that a workforce that is the smallest in 30 years has turned in nearly 3 trillion in surplus payroll collections,  after Obama reduced the payroll SS deduction by 4% of the total payroll and 25% of the actual Social Security payroll deduct of nearing 16% ? 

Look,  the Reuter's  claim is nothing short of “asinine” in terms of content and deliberate in contrast to what the author must know to be true.  And what is the truth? 

That Social Security, over the decades,  has added $18.8 trillion . . . . .  in unfunded and additional obligations for current SS participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll and benefit taxes, certain transfers from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and assets of the Social Security trust fund (link) and will not recover from the influx of the Boomer generation  -  78 million folks coming into this "safety net" at the rate of 10,000 per day for the next 22 years.  

Medicare is in far worse shape as it currently holds onto 39 trillion in unfunded obligations.  What is disturbing as relates to Medicare is that its deficit has accrued since 1965.  

And what has Obama done with our benefit programs?  He decided to cut half a trillion out of Medicare to help fund ObamaCare and added 30 million to its numbers all without a detailed plan;   at the same time he decided to buy re-election by reducing the Social Security payroll deduct by 25%  just when the program needs more of a contribution,  not less. 

Point of post:  to let the reader know that (1)  in a time when Social Security is a critical aspect of American retirement planning,  whether it was intended to be such or not,  the plan is already broken and may be lost to the coming generations.  And (2), when we role Medicare into ObamaCare,  our national healthcare system is so far in arrears as to be little more than a very disturbing joke on the American people.   

Question:  why would a political party refuse to deal with the deficit issues of these two monster social policies and expect to be re-elected? 

Time for a change and time to demand that these issues be effectively dealt with.