Obamaville:Government Dependency Surges 23% Largest Jump Since Jimmy Carter

[Just Win]

As Joe Biden once said, "Three Letters." Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! Where are the promised Obama/Pelosi/Reed Shovel Ready China-Debt Jobs Stimulus Bill jobs we borrowed $1,000,000,000,000.00 to create?

See Full Story = http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

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.

The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

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. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.

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.

[Sasquatch]

Hey JW, you beat me to it. I just posted this on another thread without seeing yours. However, maybe if it is repeated enough it will sink into a liberal's head.

[Just Win]

Hey JW, you beat me to it. I just posted this on another thread without seeing yours. However, maybe if it repeated enough it will sink into a liberal's head.

SAS,

Notice how the extreme left Keynesian posters will not touch this thread. If they do happen to work up the nerve to respond, $10.00 says they will not argue the government dependency index stats, but rather they will argue how stupid, dumb, and idiotic the writer of the article is for pointing out this economic danger sign. It reminds me of one of the axiom they teach all first year Law School students. "If the facts are on your side then argue the facts. If the facts are not on your sign then simply argue loudly and often. "


PS - Who knows, perhaps hey will find a misspelled word in my post and make the case because a misspelled word is in my post or the font size is not to their liking; the entire thread is invalid. But hey, it is not about me  it is about the reality of just how much damage is being inflicted on the Republic thanks to these extreme left policies.

[NCVol]

I'll have more to say later, but a quick look doesn't fill me with much hope it's an honest evaluation. 

One of their first points is, of course, that dependency has increased, lots of it due to retirement (SS) and health care (Medicare).  And then they whine that half of all wage earners paid no INCOME tax.  Saying this, and I quote:

It is the conjunction of these two trends—higher spending on dependence-creating programs, and an ever-shrinking number of taxpayers who pay for these programs—

Of course, everyone who earns a wage pays taxes to fund retirement (SS) and health care (Medicare).  In fact, SS payments have reduced deficits over time by about $3 TRILLION.  So, income taxes have not funded SS or Medicare - the reverse is true.  SS and Medicare taxes have funded INCOME tax cuts. 

Maybe they correct this bit of dishonest "analysis" later. 

This is a surprisingly honest statement in the first few paragraphs:

The 2012 publication of the Index of Dependence on Government marks the tenth year that The Heritage Foundation has flashed warning lights about Americans’ growing dependence on government programs. For a decade, the Index has signaled troubling and rapid increases in the growth of dependence-creating federal programs,

Of course, it's all Obama's fault, though, even the increases that happened when the GOP controlled the House and Senate and WH....   

[Sasquatch]

I'll have more to say later, but a quick look doesn't fill me with much hope it's an honest evaluation. 

Of course it doesn't. It is negative for Obama. Therefore it isn't honest. 

Ummm, ummm, ummm!

[NCVol]

That's actually not true.  I don't think Obama has done a good job on the economy, as I say ALL THE TIME.  

But it's really a shame that we can't have an honest debate.  And Heritage doesn't appear to want an honest debate.  Seriously, the vast majority of government "dependency" is SS and Medicare.  And if you want to talk about those, an honest analysis simply MUST include some discussion of payroll taxes that are earmarked to fund those programs.  If you ignore payroll taxes, and talk ONLY about income taxes, you're not engaged in honest analysis, it's called propaganda.  

Here's a quote from the meat of the report: 

In 1962, the first year measured in the Index of Dependence on Government, the percentage of people who did not pay federal income taxes themselves and who were not claimed as dependents by someone who did pay federal income taxes stood at 23.7 percent; it fell to 12 percent by 1969 before beginning a ragged and ultimately steady increase. By 2000, the percentage was 34.1 percent; by 2009, it was 49.5 percent.[9] In short, the country is now at a point where roughly one-half of “taxpayers” do not pay federal income taxes, and where most of that same population receives generous federal benefits. (See Chart 1.)

This trend should concern everyone who supports America’s republican form of government. If the citizens’ representatives are elected by an increasing percentage of voters who pay no income tax, how long will it be before these representatives respond more to demands for yet more entitlements and subsidies from non-payers than to the pleas of taxpayers to exercise greater spending prudence?

Again, NO MENTION AT ALL OF PAYROLL TAXES.  Here's what they are missing.  

In 1962, receipts were as follows:

Income Tax - 45,571  
Payroll Tax - 17,046
Total - 99,676
Payroll tax share - 17%

In 2009

Income tax - 915,308
Payroll tax - 890,917
Total - 2,104,995
Payroll tax share - 43%.  

So the share of payroll taxes has gone up by 250%.  Would you know that.  It's also about equal to all income taxes.  Would a Heritage reader know that?  No, they want to paint a picture of the population who hasn't had an increase in pay for about 40 years as moochers and leaches.  They don't pay INCOME tax.  They pay a HELLUVA lot of PAYROLL TAX, but we will ignore that ENTIRELY....  

It's dishonest analysis.  It's Heritage, so totally expected, but I don't know how their "researchers" sleep at night with this kind of clearly intentionally misleading "analysis."  

[Sasquatch]

Sooooooo, are more people dependent on the government today than when Obama took office?  

If you don't like the Heritage data, enlighten us with some "official" data. This chart below is actually dated since the number, if I remember correctly, is now over either 46 or 47 million (what's a million among friends), but maybe you have some newer data that doesn't show an increase in Obama stash-giving government depency :

[Jeremy Roenick]

Circumstantial Sas, circumstantial.  That 16 million SNAP recipients added to the rolls since 2008 doesn't prove a thing.  They're all college students.  Yeah, they'll soon have jobs.  /sarc off/

[NCVol]

This is just like my problems with Zero Hedge.  You proved in three seconds that there is no need to fabricate a bogus "analysis" to make the point that dependency has gone up.  Of course it has, we're in a damn depression, and if you didn't realize that, look at unemployment benefits and food stamps, as well as Medicaid.  Point proved.    

But they didn't stop there, because, I assume, saying that the social safety nets went way UP AS DESIGNED IN A DEPRESSION isn't news.  That's the point of having them,so they kick in during depressions.  

So we have a new "index" that shows the same thing.  It's really shockingly misleading.  

I laughed at one point - they complained about complex 401k plans, said we need simple retirement plans for small business.  Well, there is a SIMPLE plan (that's what it's called, and it can be started in 5 minutes or so) for small business.  There are IRAs, Roth IRAs.  they just didn't make an attempt to inform - it's all advancing an agenda.  

Bottom line is I just get sick and damn tired of so called respectable right wing think tanks putting out drivel and calling it analysis.  I'm not sure if ZH is just lazy/sloppy/ignorant or actively engaged in misinformation, but Heritage hires people who DO know better.  They're simply a propaganda outfit, and everything they produce should be viewed as such.  And when you realize they're a propaganda outfit, it's no surprise that the fail to MENTION payroll taxes in their analysis of tax burdens and how "half don't pay INCOME taxes" because if you mention payroll taxes, you have to acknowledge that almost all workers pay them and those taxes are dedicated to fund the vast majority of what they call "dependence."  

[Jeremy Roenick]

Fact: 58% of the Obama 2012 budget is for entitlement programs.

Someone needs to hop in a time machine and go ask FDR if he planned on nearly 60% of the budget going to prop up the citizens of the United States.  Case example of how a good thing can be taken too far.  If you continue to throw out bird feed, don't be surprised if all the birds in the neighborhood are soon squatting on your front porch.

[Sasquatch]

Hey JR, help me out. Is this NCVol's argument:

1. The data that shows that the government dependency rate has gone up during Obama is FALSE?

2. However, the government dependency rate HAS in fact gone up during Obama is TRUE?

Is that right, or is that too confusing to really understand?  

[NCVol]

Fact: 58% of the Obama 2012 budget is for entitlement programs.

Someone needs to hop in a time machine and go ask FDR if he planned on nearly 60% of the budget going to prop up the citizens of the United States.  Case example of how a good thing can be taken too far.  If you continue to throw out bird feed, don't be surprised if all the birds in the neighborhood are soon squatting on your front porch.

Of the "Obama" budget.... as if that would be different under the "Bush" budget....

The vast majority of that is SS and Medicare, and Medicaid.  I've said about 100,000,000 times more or less that we have ONE big spending problem and that's medical care, which means Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits for retired soldiers and private sector.  It's double the cost of the rest of the world.  There is your "problem."  SS has a current 2.6 TRILLION SURPLUS, so lumping that in with the other is misleading.