"In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income."

Begs repeating.

Yeah, that's because Obama started that terrible recession back in 2007

.

The problem I have with this index is that it includes Social Security benefits that have been paid for by withholdings from paychecks, but what can you expect from the Heritage Foundation?

What can you expect from a "think tank" that publishes drivel like this..

Yeah, that's because Obama started that terrible recession back in 2007

#2 | Posted by Corky

So the way he went about fixing it was running up the debt by creating dependancies. That should serve him well in the upcoming election.

So the way he went about fixing it .....

Related:

"The Real Story on Workforce Numbers: No Change?"

"this has all been much ado about nothing. Owing to a once-in-a-decade adjustment based upon census data, they make the case that the workforce didn't lose over a million workers, but neither did the real unemployment rate drop.

In other words, the participation rate (employment-population ratio) was reported to have dropped by 0.3%, exactly the amount of participation rate "drop" created by changing the population number used in the calculation (due to updated census data.) Without this once-a-decade adjustment, the change in participation rate would have been reported a...wait for it...zero."

www.insperity.com

has been working.

#6 | Posted by Corky

Nice link. They didn't even update the December unemployment numbers after CBO cleaned them up. LOL!

The problem I have with this index is that it includes Social Security benefits that have been paid for by withholdings from paychecks, but what can you expect from the Heritage Foundation?

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-08 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do they claim otherwise? Is SS not a dependency program? What GOVERNMENT programs are not paid for by paychecks - directly or indirectly?

3yrs and obama still has no shit on him concerning the economy according to the obamabots.

When government robs Peter to pay Paul, it wins favor from Paul.

"according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation"

Wasn't this the outfit that said "Bush was going to be Reagan 3"? Or was it the dues collecting union that said over and over again that Iraq was going to be" flowers and chocolate" and take "six weeks top"? Or is it the "think tank" that supports intelligent design?

Has this group of clowns ever gotten anything right? These stupid assholes couldn't even impeach Clinton properly!

Bush still had more people on Food Stamps and Reagan had higher unemployment than president Obama.

"Do they claim otherwise?"

Normally referred to by honest people as "misleading"

Bwahaha!
I just saw that this clown shack "think tank" is asking $25.00 annually from the reliable slobs "limited one time offer as heard on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity"!
You have to be one thick bastard to throw $25.00 their way, not to mention the level of idiocy it takes to commit to $1,000 in annual dues.
No wonder "conservatives" are whining every day and are having such a bad go in today's economy, shit, they willingly give their money away to a fairytale factory.

has been working.
#6 | Posted by Corky

Until the deficit spending, borrowing and money counterfeiting can no longer be sustained.

Bush still had more people on Food Stamps and Reagan had higher unemployment than president Obama.

#12 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2012-02-08 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag: FAIL

In December 2008, SNAP/Food Stamp participation was 31,784,453 people,

In December 2010, SNAP/Food Stamps participation rose to a record 44,082,324 people,

Hmmm..I wonder if some of it could have anything to do with all the extra boomers that are retiring. You know..all the Teapublicans that are whining "Keep your government hands off of my medicare!"

Yeah, that's because Obama started that terrible recession back in 2007
.
#2 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2012-02-08 11:21 AM

Let's see, who held congress then?

ROTFLMFAO

Hope and change

SUCKERS

"Let's see, who held congress then?"

Let's see...how many financial bills were written by Dems, got past filibusters, passed, and were signed into law by Dubya before the meltdown?

Oh, right...none.

#14 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2012-02-08 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Why piss away good money when you can see Rachel Maddow everynight for $59.95/month?

Let's see...how many financial bills were written by Dems,
Oh, right...none.

#19 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-02-08 07:10 PM

To tell you the truth, I do not know. But that does not explain why the messiah has brought a budget to the congress in 3 years.

Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama

I think that headline should read:

When government robs Peter to pay Paul, it wins favor from Paul.

#10 | Posted by Ray

Ray I am shocked to see you attempt this shameless and baseless smear on Ron Paul. I just called my buddy Peter and he swears that Ron Paul had nothing to do with the recent robbery.

I understand that you will not vote for Paul but to stoop to smears is unconscionable.

I understand that you will not vote for Paul but to stoop to smears is unconscionable.
#23 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Are you serious? That's a takeoff from "Rob Peter to pay Paul."

First of all, Ron Paul will never be the Republican front runner; he's outside the Republican establishment. Second, if he did become president, if they don't assassinate him, they'll make him the scapegoat for the economic collapse.

I'm not going to lower myself by supporting a despicably corrupt political system.

What is it with old people and a total lack of sense of humor Ray?

I mean my god your living off my SS money you will die before it runs out and I will be left living in the chaos that follows and you can't even laugh? Good grief it's the young who should be bitter not you geezers.

What is it with old people and a total lack of sense of humor Ray?

This is a liberal website. One never knows where anybody is coming from. I kind of thought you were joking.

I mean my god your living off my SS money you will die before it runs out and I will be left living in the chaos that follows and you can't even laugh? Good grief it's the young who should be bitter not you geezers.

I have kids and grandkids. BTW, I still work. Retirement is too risky. I'm pretty sure I'll live long enough to see this collapse.

At the rate deficits are doubling, I wouldn't give it five years. Ten at most. The feds won't default in the classic sense. They'll print until the dollar is worthless.

The problem I have with this index is that it includes Social Security benefits that have been paid for by withholdings from paychecks, but what can you expect from the Heritage Foundation?

#3 | Posted by 726

No. Your paychecks are not paying YOUR SS benies. They are paying the benies of current recipients. The program is even more criminal than a Ponzi Scheme (because contributions are mandatory) and as a result it is a welfare program for the elderly (whether they need it or not).

Further, as a whole the elderly (and boomers about the qualify as elderly) are our richest demographic. The young workers are our poorest demographic (in terms of WEALTH, not to be confused with income). I find it fascinating that liberals applaud such a massive transference of wealth from the poor to the rich.