The New Socialist Progressive Party Plots Destruction

This is from the Heritage Foundation - I believe this is very well laid out and true. The bottom line here is if we don't do something now to stop the bleeding we will all suffer greatly in the near future.

It is clear to me, given the number of baby boomers coming on line in the next five to ten years for social programs, the United States will become a third rate back-water nation. The worst part of this is the people that are responsible for this mess now will not have to take ownership of the failure in our future, the liberal Democrats, i.e., the New Socialist Progressives.

When the roof caves in on future generations, the Democrat party will be only a footnote in history - they will have given up all control to the New Socialist Progressives. And listening to Obama and Hillary give their vision of America in the near future, we all can take it for granted freedom as we know it today will be a thing of the past.

Socialism is not about freedom and Democracy, it's about control and the power to enforce it in the hands of an elite few. Students of history, do you see any parallels here?

Hang on to your wallets and your precious freedoms.

Keep the faith, the battle is joined!

Five liberal myths about entitlement programs
Government spending is spiraling out of control.

Over the next several decades the big three entitlement programs-Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security-will more than double as a proportion of the economy.

Without reform, these massive spending increases will squeeze other programs, including the military, and could compel unprecedented tax increases.

Many liberals claim that reform isn’t needed, and their budget plan fails to curb this ever-rising spending. They base this inaction on five common myths that Heritage’s Brian Riedl debunks.

Myth 1: There is no need to hurry on reform.

The Facts: Entitlement programs are big and getting bigger-quickly. Riedl notes that “Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid already absorb 42 percent of the federal budget and are growing by 7 percent annually, making them the largest impediment to balancing the budget.” And unless lawmakers act soon, “all 77 million baby boomers will have turned 55, leaving future lawmakers with the unpalatable options of massive, economy-stagnating tax in­creases, unprecedented program terminations, or the paring back of benefits for those over 55. Tack­ling reforms immediately will reduce their ultimate costs, spread the burden across more people, and give baby boomers more time to adjust their retire­ment strategies.”

Myth 2: These budget projections are unreliable.

The Facts: Incontestable demographics make clear that the retiring baby boomers will drive up entitlement costs. “The impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers is not a vague theoretical projection,” Riedl argues. As more and more boomers retire, the government will face increased Medicare spending, higher long-term care costs and Social Security benefits determined by a specific formula.

Myth 3: Economic growth will solve the problem.

The Facts: “Revenues associated with higher economic growth would help only marginally,” Riedl explains. In addition, because entitlement costs are tied to economic indicators like income, “the same factors that could increase tax revenues would also increase spending.”

Myth 4: Cutting government waste and pork is enough.

The Facts: Cutting waste alone will not cover the massive new spending on entitlements. “In fact,” Riedl writes, “offsetting this spending hike would require eliminating every other federal program by 2049 except interest payments on the federal debt. Non-defense programs would be eliminated by 2030, and defense spending would be eliminated by 2049.”

Myth 5: Letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire will solve the problem.

The Facts: “Losing the tax cuts would close less than 1 percentage point of the 10.2 percent gap” between current and future entitlement costs. And that projection from the Congressional Budget office doesn’t take into account the likely economic consequences of such a tax increase.