« | »

Heritage: Dependence On Gov’t Record High

From the indispensible Heritage Foundation:

Dependence on Government at All-Time High

Patrick Tyrrell
February 8, 2012

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, released today, should be a wake-up call for America. Published by The Heritage Foundation for the past 10 years, the Index tracks the growth in government dependence dating back to the early 1960s. This year’s edition shows an alarming trend. Among the most troubling facts:

* One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.

* Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.

* The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).

No wonder so many people are leaving the workforce.

* At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

Which is the highest this number has ever been.

* In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.

To be fair, Social Security and Medicare are not quite the same as direct government assistance. But it is certainly close. And the means testing that Democrats are pushing, will make it dangerously close.

* As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years.

Which is both astonishing and unsustainable.

However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.

This much dependence on government has not been seen before in our nation, and it spells grave danger for the republic. A dose of reality would inform politicians that federal handouts, while politically expedient, will doom the republic if they are not curtailed.

Unfortunately, this is always what happens to every democracy, every country with a representative form of government, once the citizens realize they can vote themselves money.

Heck, in the US you don’t even have to be a citizen.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, February 9th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “Heritage: Dependence On Gov’t Record High”

  1. River0 says:

    This has always been the Marxist plan, right from the playbook of Saul Alinsky’s 1954 book ‘Rules For Radicals’, which is dedicated to Lucifer in the inside page.

    The idea is to “overwhelm the system” and create chaos by bankrupting it. The EU is right on the brink and we’re close behind. Hillary Clinton wrote her Master’s Thesis on Saul Alinsky, and it’s a sealed document. Wouldn’t it be great if someone leaked that information?

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Free Money For Everyone!! Yay!!!

    River …. contact ANNONYMOUS, see if they will go after it. Hell, they hacked Syria’s government servers and released all their emails.

  3. tranquil.night says:

    A brief explanation on why the machines farm humans for power by keeping them attached to a false virtual utopia, from “The Matrix” http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbEHoU0lWyx8&v=bEHoU0lWyx8&gl=US

  4. Petronius says:

    One guy pulling the wagon, three guys riding in the back.

    Steve : “Heck, in the US you don’t even have to be a citizen.”

    Sure-fire recipe for disaster = a welfare state with open borders. Californication.

  5. Anonymoose says:

    It doesn’t take an idiot to see….well maybe it does, that most of the Federal money is going to medicare, retirements, social security, and all the assistance programs. All the $%^@$% about the Bush wars and tax cuts is just a smokescreen.

    I’m not looking forward to a future where I’ll be 65 and unable to retire because the SS money is gone, and barely able to find work because I’m too old and unemployable. And I’ll still be getting the same garbage I have my entire life, that I have all the advantages and need to cough up my fair share so some disadvantaged welfare kid can buy the latest video game.

    The liberals know this, but refuse to see it. One of my friends has a PhD and still insists that we need to do more to help the poor, and doesn’t see a problem with half the people not paying taxes as the wealthy have so much. It’s like wealth to them is finite, a big house and some people are hogging too much of the space. Make everyone equal and there’s plenty for all.

    But wealth is more like a crop that is spent almost as fast as it is created, and the key to getting more is to spend less than you make. Break this, and I see no real incentive to make a huge income and give most of it away.

    They will never open their eyes however, and all the Gimmes will keep on looking to their checks as a payday and talking about how they don’t have enough when some of them have cars and houses and more than me.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Moose, I believe you are talking about the ever-eternal mental state that humans are never satisfied. For that, and in reference to the average liberal, I have to resort to the quote from 1 Corinthians 13:11.

      When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

      I’m not one to quote the bible very often but there is that logical aspect of this piece of scripture. Perhaps given that the average liberal is not too indoctrinated or even aware of the teachings the bible has to offer, and probably resentful of it in general, they are also painfully unaware of the fact that the bible references human behavior quite frequently. But even without espousing Christian sensibilities, one cannot deny that “thinking as a child” is pretty much the way the world of liberals thinks.

      Constant unfairness, why does everyone have more than I have?, I exist so therefore I have a right to what others have, etc etc.

      This is the classic childish viewpoint. But humans are only created equal; They grow and aspire to widely different results. some become outstanding musicians. Some become talented athletes. Some have no desire to try hard at anything and have no passions save to try to discredit those who have excelled at something.

      One of the typical responses one hears from a child or teen who is being disciplined is (to the parent or guardian), “You’re mean!” Is this not typically what liberals claim the conservatives to be? Truly it takes an adult mind to see the benefits of “cruel to be kind” as well as why it’s important to let people fail. A wise person allows for failure so that the younger can learn from the mistake. Sometimes it appears cruel but the elder knows that it’s better to suffer a small sting now than to get in real trouble later.

      Largely, the liberal world has chosen not to grow up. I have to add a favorite humorous exrpression: “They say with age comes wisdom but sometimes, age just shows up all by itself” and I speak of Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, etc who, all their adult lives have accused conservatives of their “mean-ness”.

      But as has been pointed out for generations, what is more mean? Letting a person suffer by not supplying them a free meal thus inspiring them to find a suitable livelihood and a path to success, or giving them money indefinitely, so that their short term discomfort is eased but also keeping them in that station in life as long as the money will last? How can that be called a “success”?

      My school library used to be filled with books about those who struggled against adversity and became leaders, achievers and winners. That was a common theme in schools in my day. Now, I’m quite sure it’s more geared to failure, rewarding same and helping the child to grow up to become a victim.

      I would love it if one of our presidential candidates could address that lady, what was her name? Henrietta Hughes….if Gingrich would dress her down, publicly. Ask her, “Well, what have YOU done to better your life? Have you gone to night school? Are you trying to start your own business? Do you save some of the money you earn? What? Why do you expect the government to give you anything? And if it does, what’s to stop that same government from taking it away?”

      But these things never happen. Half or better of the nation’s population seems to think that in part or in whole, the government is somehow responsible for their well-being. It’s pathetic, as far as I’m concerned.

      The final thought is that, as a kid, I was told I could be whatever I wanted to be. However, be aware of certain limitations that would prevent my choices from coming true, such as medical requirements to be a military pilot or size and ability to be a professional athlete. Best to be prepared for life by keeping options open while reaching for your dream. Do parents even teach this anymore? Do teachers? (rhetorical) So we end up with bitter, angry young adults who only pursued their dream to find they are not qualified to do it and instead end up flipping burgers, washing cars, doing those menial jobs that requite little to no skill. They are then angry children, thinking as children and…because of the way they were taught, blaming everyone and everything else for their misfortune.

    • JohnMG says:

      Yeah, I’ve got a thing with Obama’s constant talk about fairness.

      This past week I went to my accountant to have my tax returns for my business filed. While there the talk turned to the economy and other things political. (I first went into business in 1970, and can honestly say these last three years are the absolute worst I’ve ever endured.) We both lamented of the year 2011 and my returns were as dismal as feared.

      Anyway, my accountant related this story to me: She had just finished calculating and filing returns for one of her clients, a never-married young mother of two, who had only worked part-time due to the birth of the second child, and who had had taxes of $1400 withheld. After doing all of the possible claims allowable under the current tax laws, (EITC, etc.) this person was getting almost $9700 in a refund check from Uncle Sugar. The woman’s response? “Are you sure? Last year I got $8500. I thought I’d at least get ten thousand because of the new baby.”

      I had to loan money from my retirement nest-egg into my business to keep it solvent in 2011, and this parasite gets almost ten grand in tax refunds?! I didn’t realize the tax system was just another welfare program.

      What’s fair about that?

  6. Anonymoose says:

    Well put Rusty, and John that’s exactly what I’ve been seeing. This woman is actually getting more money back than she’s been paying into the system. For the past several years I only had a refund because of taking the interest off on my student loan payments, which ended this year and was only about 15% of my withholding. So for next year I’ll either get a small amount or pay on taxes.

    I don’t know what will ever end this cycle; anytime someone says the obvious the Dems/Liberals scream about how coldhearted it is to make these people get jobs or deal with things. Yet here, and in England for that matter, it’s a growing class of people who are supported by the government and have no incentive to learn or work. One day the system will break, maybe it is the whole Cloward-Piven thing, just I don’t see how people raised for few generations on free handouts will suddenly decide to be active citizens and participate in a socialist utopia.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Fairness is an vacuous abstraction, money is a tool. The mission is total control.

      An irony that strikes me regarding the Left is that to create a utopia one would practically have to remove the element of chance from every level of Life’s equations.

      Yet the Left practically more than anything is the most prone to look at Chance as the supreme universal authority (see Darwin).

« Front Page | To Top
« | »