align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

The Cancer of America: Entitlement Spending

From: Ronald S.
Sent on: Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:58 PM


         The Cancer of America: Entitlement Spending
Exposing The Democrat's Myth That Military Spending Is Driving Increased Federal Spending, Deficits And Debt

We have all heard Democrats spin the yarn about defense spending being the big problem that is driving the explosion in federal government spending, deficits and debt. Just like Obama's repeated "you can keep your plan, period, no matter what" lie of the year, the Democrat's defense spending yarn is a total fabrication as well. Over the last sixty years, entitlement spending has sky-rocketed driving up federal spending and deficits, while crowding out other necessary spending such as defense, infrastructure, agriculture and the interior.


From 1960 To Today, Federal Spending Explodes



In 1960, federal government spending was 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GPD), the total amount of goods and services produced in the United States. While today federal government spending is 24% of GDP, the greatest increase coming under the presidency of Barack Obama, going from 20% to 25% of GDP in just one year. 






Federal Spending Drives Deficits

What is interesting is that when federal spending is around 18% of GDP, as during[masked] and[masked], the government ran very small deficits, balanced budgets or surpluses. And when spending increased to over 20% of GDP, as under Obama, deficits sky-rocketed, proving that Barack Obama's "We don't have a
spending problem" statement is just one more Obama fabrication, while Ronald Reagan's statement, "we don't have a trillion dollar debt because we have not taxed enough, we have a trillion dollar debt because we spend to much" was dead on.





Under Obama, the United States has had the five largest annual deficits in U.S. history. The national debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $17.4 trillion during his presidency, going from $34,600 per every man, woman and child in America to $55,060 over the same period.

So, what is causing out-of-control government spending and deficits? Is military spending the problem as Obama and the Democrats would like us to believe?

Entitlement Spending Sky-Rockets; Military And Veterans' Spending Cut

In 1960, military spending (defense spending and veterans benefits) was 58% of the federal budget. While today, military spending is only 20% of the budget. On the other hand, entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, HUD) has sky-rocketed from 20% of the federal budget to over 65% of the federal budget today, projected to be 70% of federal spending by 2018.




In the meantime, even with the increase in total spending, the increase in entitlements has been so great that there is little funding left for defense, infrastructure, agriculture, the interior and other essential services.

Largest Spending Increase: Welfare Spending


The largest driver of the explosion in entitlement spending is welfare spending (Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, HUD). Since the start of the Lyndon Johnson's Great Society "War on Poverty" in 1964, total federal and state welfare spending has increased from $50 billion in 1964, to $927 billion in 2011, and $1.032 trillion in 2013.




Of the
over $1 trillion in government welfare spending today, $745 billion is spent by the federal government, the rest by the states. Since 1960, welfare spending as a percentage of federal government spending has increased from less than 1% of the federal budget to an incredible 21% today. In the last two years, welfare spending surpassed defense spending.

Since Obama took office, welfare spending has increased more than any other part of government spending, from $722 billion in 2008 to over $1.032 trillion in 2013, an increase of 43%, while the federal government's share increased from $522 billion to $745 billion, an increase of 43% as well.

The problem is that this spending hasn't accomplished anything. Poverty under Obama has increased as well.

The War On Poverty: 50 Years And $17 Trillion Later, A Total Failure

This year is the 50th anniversary of the Democrats' War on Poverty. 50 years and $17 trillion dollars later, what has the Democrats' War on Poverty accomplished? The answer is nothing. Since the War on Poverty's inception in 1964, the poverty rate has remained around 15%. As a matter of fact, the greatest In gains against poverty were made in the years before the Democrats launched their Great Society big spending program. In the twenty five years leading up the legislation, the poverty rate came down from over 40% during the Great Depression to 15% in the 1960s. During this period there were virtually no welfare programs.





Further, during Obama's over $300 billion increase in welfare spending, the number of people on food stamps has increased from 28 million in 2008 to 48 million today, while the poverty rate has increased from 13% to 15% during the same period. Obama's so called "recovery" is the first economic expansion where the poverty rate has increased.

Welfare Spending An Out-Of-Control Failure

Besides the obvious failure of The War on Poverty, the simple fact is that the math on entitlement spending just doesn't even add up. In 1962 famed economist Milton Friedman, in his book Capitalism and Freedom, proposed the negative income tax. Every American would fill out a form with the IRS, if you fell below a certain income level you would receive a check, above a certain income level you would pay a tax. The plan would get rid of massive government bureaucracies and waste. Of course this common sense approach was opposed by liberals. What would they do without millions of government workers to unionize and fund their campaigns?

Let's look at how the math of the negative income tax would work. Currently the Department of Health and Human Services puts the poverty level at $11,670 for a single person, $15,730 for a two person household and $23,850 for a four person household, an average of $7,470 per person. If the government were to issue a check to each individual who is living at or below the poverty level, the 48 million people on food stamps, the maximum total
government welfare expenditure this year would be $358 billion, $400 billion less than this year's federal welfare spending and $680 billion less than total welfare spending.

Obama Proposes Increased Domestic Spending; Cuts To Military

So, what is Obama's latest proposal? He wants to increase domestic spending programs to end what he calls "austerity," even though welfare spending has sky-rocketed during his presidency, and cut military spending even more. In 2011, the defense budget was $705 billion, with the sequester cuts, this year the defense budget will be $575 billion. Now Obama wants to cut defense even more.

But last over the last two years, Obama and his cronies sang a totally different tune. Obama and his then Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, were supposedly against defense cuts.






In July 2012, when testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the
ten year $500 billion sequester cuts to the defense budget, Panetta said: "I sure as hell hope sequestration doesn't happen. It would be a disaster in terms of the Defense Department. As far as our budget is concerned, as far as our ability to respond to the threats that are out there, it has a big impact."



On March 2, 2013, when the sequester cuts were about to take effect, Obama stood in front of men and women of our armed forces and addressed the nation:"Beginning this week, businesses that work with the military will have to lay folks off. Communities near military bases will take a serious blow. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve their country - Border Patrol agents, FBI agents, civilians who work for the Defense Department - will see their wages cut and their hours reduced,"

So, why was Obama so concerned about the military then, but not now? And if Obama thought the sequester defense cuts were bad last year, why are even more defense cuts good this year? The answer is simple. The
sequester cuts to the military were tied to cuts to his beloved entitlement and welfare programs. Obama was never concerned about our military. He was only concerned about food stamps, Medicaid and welfare. Without these, he would not have more dependency and more votes.

The Reality

Under Obama for the first time in history, the federal government is spending more on welfare, $755 billion, than on defense, $575 billion.

In 1960, military spending was 10% of GDP, today it is 3.5%, if Obama gets his way, it will drop to 2.5%. Poeple who serve our country mean nothing to Obama, but people who get food stamps and vote for him do.
 
In the mean time, $17 trillion has been spent on welfare programs that haven't worked and have encouraged dependency.

This past month, another first
in our history, the federal debt, $17.4 trillion, surpassed our country's GDP, $16.8 trillion. In the meantime, the federal reserve is printind $75 billion a month to pay for Obama's schemes.

Entitlement spending is the cancer of America. Obama is trading entitlements and dependency for our safety and our future. This is what Obama meant five years ago when he told thousands of candle holding adoring zombies: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Ron

Our Sponsors

  • MyFabulousMall

    Free delivery on orders of $120. www.amway.com/myfabulousmall

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy