Congressional Budget Office: We’ve Got Too Many People Dependent On Government

Proof • June 30, 2009

That’s essentially what the new report from the CBO says, if not exactly in those words.

Today, CBO released its Long-Term Budget Outlook, projecting deficits will hit 7.5% of GDP by 2020, almost 15% by 2035, and well over 40% by the end of the 75-year budget window if we continue current policies. Driving these deficits is the rapid growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and to a lesser extent Social Security, along with the subsequent interest payments that result from high levels of debt sustained through continued borrowing.
A debate exists among experts, though, over the source of growth over these programs. OMB Director (and former CBO Director) Peter Orszag has been among those arguing that health care cost growth is the primary driver of projected entitlement costs, and that experts there has been an overemphasis on population aging. …
In its newest release, CBO allocates the interaction effect between the two effects, and finds that population aging contributes to closer to 30% of the growth in Medicare and Medicaid. When they look at a less distant year, 2035, they find population aging accounts for about 44% of the growth. And all of this excludes the role of Social Security. Adding this program to the mix, population aging is responsible for around 44% of entitlement growth in 2080, and 64% in 2035.

What this means is that we’ve a growing problem with too many people collecting government entitlements and not enough people working to actually fund those entitlements. Which is a problem stemming from big government. Rather than finding policies that empower people to be independent our politicians are endlessly promoting policies that make people more dependent on government. We expand government programs. Raise their budgets. And to pay for it all, we tax the businesses and individuals who are working more until many of them are forced to become dependent on government as well.
Then the whole process starts over again.
What we need is a shift in thinking. Rather than a slavish devotion to the idea that the way to help people is to give them access to government programs that then make them dependent on the government we should promote the idea that citizens are individuals, and are best off when they’re dependent on nobody but themselves.
Now, I recognize that not all citizens are capable of that, but even so. It seems too often that we start with the assumption that government is the best cure, rather than independence.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array Bat One

If the Congressional Budget Office assessment is correct and there are too many people dependent on government then obviously, the solution is for CBO to hire more people… at taxpayer expense, of course.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

SS would have been fairly solvent if the Democrats had not plundered the account back in 1964 to pay for their “war on poverty” (welfare give away to non-producers).

Now, when the bills are coming due to those who actually worked 40+ years and put money into the system, the liberal liars are scrambling around searching for the money they stole.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

It hurts taxpayers as well as “the children” of those who refuse to work. It teaches them to be lazy and not self-sufficient. Basically, as the lead reads, dependent, babies for life.
stewartized

And your point Buzz, would be…what? Showing us that the people who “live in the projects of any big American city”, are usually always heavily run Democratic cities, ruined by Liberal policies. We already knew that.
2Hotel9

More racism from the lifelong Democrat Party member, buzzy.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

No Adam, the way to fix this mess is to put republicans back in power so they can give more tax breaks to the wealthy and coporate while allowing more capitalist predators from the wealthy and corporate classes to attach themselves to the system in order to extract wealth from the middle and lower classes without contributing anything.

However, we should congratulate conservatives on reaching their goal of destroying the country, a goal they set out to achieve over 50 years ago.
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

We don’t tax wealth, which is a static quantity. We tax income, which is a dynamic quantity.

Remember when Clinton/Gore tried to implement a tax on “imputed income?” How about their BTU tax? Obama will try to get them passed under a new name.
http://www.northdecoder.com/ Adam

I think that’s a poor characterization of progressive policy goals. I frankly do support reforming social security in ways that cut benefits for those that don’t need them(something like a graduated system where the payments decrease as your net worth increases on a sliding scale that adjusts for inflation), but the anti-tax folks are gonna have to admit that we will need to make those at the top pay their fair share of payroll taxes. most wealthy americans pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than I do as a college student. Most corporations pay less as a percentage in taxes than small businesses do. They also wield more influence in congress and they really run the system. That needs to go away.

That’s our real problem, and its gonna take *gasp* GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION (dun Dun DUN)… to get it done.
robert108

eddie: SS was sold to the American public with typical Dem fear tactics after FDR’s extended Depression in 1938. He had been tanking the economy for six years with his wasteful social spending, so he concocted the SS pyramid scheme, which was dependent on each succeeding generation being larger than the previous one. It never was self-sustaining, even when average life expectancy was 68 years old, like it was when the scheme was originally sold to us.
pparets

Adam, Dino is a guy you can trust to give you the straight facts.

Notice that those making more than $372,000 annually are greedy conservatives who contribute nothing… Oh, wait…

They pay 35%. Imagine that! More than a third… selfish bastards….
Buzz

That is why it is safer to live in conservative, Republican states.

Yea, those boot lip animals acted just like you white suburban cons in the aftermath of Katrina didn’t they. New Orleans is a known safe haven.

You put five white people together and you have a group.
You put five black people together and you have a gang.
Doesn’t matter what city you are in, it is the same across the globe.
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

I spent plenty of time on the South Side of Chicago; I never had a problem.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

That is why it is safer to live in conservative, Republican states. More honesty and personal responsibility. For some who have never seen a scientific research project, here is one proving (or disproving) the null hypothesis.

http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/republican-states-are-safer.html
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Assraped and gutted.

Sounds like a typical Saturday night at dino’s place.

Beat you to it.
Zakk

Should we expect a speech from Obama with a banner behind his head that reads, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”?
FlyOnTheWall

Driving these deficits is the rapid growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and to a lesser extent Social Security…

Congressional Budget Office is going to be massively “re-staffed”

Yeah Hotel, I reread and have to agree. If not re-staffed more reports will come out with precisely worded “clarifications” to explain what they really meant. “Obviously the previous report was poorly worded and in the coming years we can expect enhanced rainbows and daisies.”
2Hotel9

Lik! You forgot, buzzy is a welfare whore, it don’t want to share its “bennies” with anyone else.

I have a minor prediction. Congressional Budget Office is going to be massively “re-staffed” in the very near future, and all its past works thrown in the trash.
JimH

That’s why they hate the relatively peaceful cities in America

You know, all them murder capitals of the world.

Can you imagine some big dorky Kevin looking white dude walking around the south side of Chicago? He would be ass fucked and gutted before the Sun went down.

You commie tards need to have a meeting and get you lies straight.
Buzz

That just might be the “cure” for conservatism. Force cons to live in one of those weak government, dog-eat-dog countries for 6 months and let them see what life is like when government takes a back seat to power brokers and corruption.

Shit make them live in the projects of any big American city. They would not make it two nights. Can you imagine some big dorky Kevin looking white dude walking around the south side of Chicago? He would be ass fucked and gutted before the Sun went down. Cut their money off now and we would need every person in the armed forces to man the street corners right here in the USA.
robert108

We don’t tax wealth, which is a static quantity. We tax income, which is a dynamic quantity.

So far, but don’t depend on Bungler Obama not instituting wealth taxes to pay for his insane and wasteful social spending and political payoffs. He doesn’t know how to facilitate economic growth, so income taxes will be a shrinking source for him. Prepare now.
If you think his threats to redistribute wealth have drained the reservoir of private investment capital, just imagine what a wealth tax will do to all private capital.
This is why socialism/fascism/communism is always economically stagnant, and has to expand into other countries, like the Soviets did after WWII.
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

Ignoring most of the economically illiterate babble from Adam, one line stuck out…

most wealthy americans pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than I do as a college student.

To which I can only say: horsecrap.

The average college student gets more in benefits, through loans and grants, than they have withheld in income taxes…which is usually refunded 100%. Their 6.5% social security taxes are matched by their employer (some evil wealthy american), and their paltry 1.5% medicare costs are dwarfed by the costs of their employer: unemployment taxes, workman’s comp, enviro taxes, a potential carbon tax coming up, corporate taxes, etc etc etc.

This is not only provably false, but it’s assuredly a lie. No one who pays nothing in federal taxes, except for social security (matched) can possibly believe they pay more in taxes than their employer, either in real dollars or as a percentage.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Buzz said, Shit make them live in the projects of any big American city.

You really think making conservatives live among the ruins of “progressive” cities will “cure” them of their conservatism?

Seriously?
FedUp

We’ve actually got TOO much Government! Cut it in hald and think of all the money we’d save – plus if we could get rid of those power grabbers by term limits we could start to see some progress… Another fairy tale
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

Countries with large governments and large programs of societal interdependence and support are safer, more peaceful, more advanced and stable. Think western Europe, Canada, Australia and the US.

Countries without are much more chaotic, brutal and backwards. Think Mexico, South America and Africa.

Of course, American cons are spoiled and harbor savage inclinations so seem to favor more chaos, brutality and by design are backwards. At least that’s what they think they want.

However, it’s ironic that these dog-eat-dog, every-stem-for-himself cons are the ones who are the most frightened and repelled by chaos and disorder. That’s why they hate the relatively peaceful cities in America, preferring the bland placidity of the sub and exurbs.

That just might be the “cure” for conservatism. Force cons to live in one of those weak government, dog-eat-dog countries for 6 months and let them see what life is like when government takes a back seat to power brokers and corruption.
http://forums.kikizo.com/ Eddie_the_Hated

I guess I really don’t understand the purpose or usefulness of social security. Growing up in a time when the “threat” of Social Security tanking has always been present, why not let me Secure myself? I’ve got no doubt in my mind I could do it.
zappatrust

What this means is that we’ve a growing problem with too many people collecting government entitlements and not enough people working to actually fund those entitlements. Which is a problem stemming from big government. Rather than finding policies that empower people to be independent our politicians are endlessly promoting policies that make people more dependent on government.

Two things: Constant pandering for future Democratic votes is more pandemic then H1N1…millions of illegal aliens receiving social security, you’re paying in but they’re not. Keeping other types of bought voters coming back again and again to vote blindly…well frankly it takes a lot of expensive entitlements. The end result…”Uncle Sam’s Plantation Syndrome” USPS, ask anyone who was around New Orleans pre Katrina. The Gub’nint tells you there is a Catagory 5 Hurricane coming to your neighborhood but you been liv’in on the plantation for so long, you say “Hell I can’t leave..how’m I gonna get my Gub’nint check this Tuesday?
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

That goes triple for the state of North Dakota!
randompasserby

I don’t think this is meant for dependance on the government so much as it is resultant from basic population dynamics.
more people working (baby boomer generation) = more going in than going out.
the follow on generations to the boomers are a fair chunk smaller than the boomers. reasons why could be debated ad nauseum, but doesn’t change the fact that the boomers outnumber their decendants. Fewer people working = less going in and more going out. (Kinda like my paycheck and bills…but that’s another story…)
this has been known for decades – longer than I’ve been alive, in fact. nobody’s done a thing about it in time to deal with it. it’s always been postponed because things are getting better everyday, so we’ll deal with it tomorrow.
tomorrow’s here. guess what?

Can’t blame the problem here on the democrats soley, nor the republicans. both have had their chance to deal with this..and both have treated this as a sacred sheep.

As for the policies, they are symptomatic. Both sides of the aisle deal only in timelines related to the next election. Neither have looked (cared?) about the long term.
Much as I hate to say it, I can’t blame Obama for having to deal with the sins of his predecessors. No matter what, he can’t win with this problem.
In the end though, the ALL politicians are sitting pretty, regardless of the results we the people deal with.
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

Adam:

~~make~~ force ~~those at the top~~ people we resent because they succeeded more than we did ~~pay~~ to surrender ~~their fair share~~ what we want to take from them ~~of payroll taxes~~ of confiscation by the government also known as taxes.

Fixed it for you.

Buzz:

Shit make them live in the projects of any big American city.

I already did, it sucks, welfare doesn’t work, I’d rather be in charge of my own life thank you very much you union shill antisemite asshole. You have no place opening your fat mouth when you get paid way more than you’re worth which is in and of itself a welfare program for lazy morons who can’t do the job properly, extorted out of business under threat of mass disruption of their business. Unions have gone from protecting employees to an extortion racket and when the jerkoffs at the top steal from the rank and file you prove yourself to be the buttboy you are by sticking up for the criminals who stole from your brothers and sisters. The same way you stick up for the thieving liberals who use the people’s money to bribe their way to staying office.

In short, you’re a dick.

A really short dick.

We don’t tax wealth, which is a static quantity. We tax income, which is a dynamic quantity. Most of the “wealthy” can show quite legally according to tax laws WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS that their income is very little. The middle class cannot. The lower class cannot. All this talk of “fair share” is an opinion based on the jealous sense that someone succeeded where you didn’t. Instead of wanting to make more money yourself, you jones to get money extorted from those you resent. Which never ever causes you to get any wealthier. So the entire reason for doing it is to exact pain and suffering on someone else for your own pleasure, which makes you a sadist, a coward, and a thief. And you who want this exaction from others, this is what liberalism has done to you. You let them make a total asshole of you. You let them.

If you won’t stick up for yourself and maintain some sense of ethics, morality, conscience and compassion for your fellow man, then at least shut the fuck up and stop contributing to the rape of the body politic by self-aggrandizing schmucks.

We reach the point of general revolt and you morons who supported the political class over your own neighbors and citizens, who played the class warfare game, you’re not even going to see a wall when you get dealt with. You want that chaos and evil to come? Keep being sell-outs to the dark side. You keep it up because that’s what’s coming at the hands of the morons you libtard boobs are supporting.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I think that’s a poor characterization of progressive policy goals. I frankly do support reforming social security in ways that cut benefits for those that don’t need them(something like a graduated system where the payments decrease as your net worth increases on a sliding scale that adjusts for inflation), but the anti-tax folks are gonna have to admit that we will need to make those at the top pay their fair share of payroll taxes.

Pay their fair share of taxes…to what end?

You work within the assumption that social security is a good thing, without bothering to examine whether or not Americans are being well served by being made dependent on programs like social security and medicare in their old age.

The politicians love it, no doubt, because it gets people lined up at Conrad and Dorgan and Pomeroy’s door for help with Medicare and Social Security disputes. They love it because it forces us to supplicate them.

But I’d much rather have a nation of independent citizens, rather than a nation of people dependent on government programs.

I don’t doubt that you have good intentions, Adam, but you start with the assumption that making people dependent on government is helping them.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Congressional Budget Office: We’ve Got Too Many People Dependent On Government

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments