Edit: On a side note, if so many people are not getting funded, WHO is getting funded then?

Mostly the study sections are populated by well known, established researchers, and guess who they like to support? Well known, established researchers! Even in science, it takes money to make money. There's an unwritten institutional commitment to protecting the status quo, despite that everyone will tell you that this is exactly what they try not to do. My boss (a very famous scientist) and I (young, inexperienced, and not well known) could submit the exact same grant, and I can guarantee you that mine would be rejected out of hand, while his would be at least scored and given a chance. Because the system is capricious and arbitrary, and reviewers answer to nobody when their logic is flawed, biased or down right incoherent. (For example, I once had a grant heavily criticized because the reviewer thought we didn't propose to use enough cutting edge technology!) It's like a lottery as the tag line suggests, except that your odds of winning increase if you've already won before. The good thing is that the current trajectory is unsustainable, so something has to change eventually. Science isn't going anywhere, so sooner or later the funding models will change.