About This Blog
The number of Americans dependent on government rose substantially during the first two years of Obama's presidency:
The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
It would be easy to write this off as the normal effect of the recession, except for one thing - the number of people dependent on the government has been going up for decades:
Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available.
Here's a chart of the trend:
This increased dependence on government is the biggest reason for the huge increases in government spending:
The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.
Look at it this way. With dependence programs (enttlements) consuming over 70% of the budget, we could cease ALL other federal government functions and we still wouldn't have a balanced budget. We'd still be in the red. All federal revenue combined won't pay for the entitlements alone. Think about this the next time you hear liberals blasting Republicans for pushing entitlement reform. The Republicans push it because WE HAVE TO DO IT. The Republicans are the only ones with the guts to admit it. Liberals remain in denial, playing partisan games. Such irresponsibility should NOT be respected or rewarded.
At the same time government spending is shooting up as more people become dependent on government, fewer people are contributing to the revenue pool:
...fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.
Income taxes are the federal government's number one source of revenue, and almost half the citizenry isn't paying them. And liberals are bashing the rich, the people who pay the most in taxes. As usual, liberals are being less than honest about what is really taking place.
We are getting dangerously near the tipping point:
In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income.
These numbers are about to get much worse.
In 2014, ObamaCare will begin adding millions to the dependency rolls.
In 2011, the first of the largest generation of Americans, the baby boomers, turned 65 and began retiring. That trend will continue for 17 more years, with 76 milion boomers retiring. The dependency rolls will begin to burst as the boomers collect Social Security and Medicare en masse. The number of workers supplying revenue to the government will wane at the same time. The government has not, to date, approved any plan to meet the entitlement demand of the retiring boomers. The amount of the unfunded entitlement estimates vary based on the amount of time over which you calculate them, but any way you look at it, they are set to explode, and our debt is ALREADY the size of our economy.
As we are headed over a financial cliff, what do liberals push ??? MORE entitlements, of course. They fiddle as the Titanic sinks, and then they pretend that some minor tax increases on the rich are going to pay for it all, when it won't come close. Those liberals should be laughed out of the country. Unfortunately, one of those liberals is the President. We will have an opportunity to correct that situation later this year. We best not miss it.
I really don't care about your political ideology. I care most about the numbers, and that's the main reason why I bash liberals on this blog. Liberals HAVE to know the numbers don't add up, but they keep pushing for more and more spending, more and more entitlements. They HAVE to know we can't tax our way out of this problem without absolutely crushing the economy, but they keep pretending we can. They HAVE to know this isn't about hating the poor, or hating minorities, or hating anyone, but they keep pretending it is. Well, there are some things more important that partisan politics, and the fiscal sustainability of our country is one of those things. If we go down in the flames of debt and fiscal madness, we all go down together. And that's precisely what I wish to avoid. Go ahead and argue with me if you want liberals, but it's your funeral too. And please spare me any further phony rhetoric about taxing the rich, which at best will take the deficit from $1.2 trillion down to...ONLY...$1 trillion !!! Big whoop. As Larry the cable guy would say, that won't "git 'er done".
As for our current economic (non)plan, since the Democrat-led Senate can't be bothered to produce an actual budget, and hasn't for over 1000 days (somebody tell me why I should vote for Democrats again ???), I can only give you Obama's 10-year budget, which adds between $7.2-9.5 trillion to the debt over a decade. He will have added $5 trillion in new debt by the time the next election rolls around. The $7.2 trillion number (which is an Obama fantasy dream number) is the rosiest scenario in a robust economy with excellent economic growth. That rosy scenario has not mamifested itself to date. I repeat, another $7.2 trillion in new debt was Obama's BEST CASE SCENARIO. It looks much more likely that two terms of Obama would add $8-10 trillion to the debt in eight years. Any questions about where he's leading this country ??? C'mon liberals, this isn't' rocket science. The answer is obvious.
The bottom line is this - A dependent nation of takers is a recipe for certain disaster. Until liberals can admit that much, the bashings will continue until morale improves.
- 2013 (62)
- 2012 (125)
- 2011 (167)
- 2010 (185)
- 2009 (228)
- 2008 (195)
- 2007 (72)