FREE-MARKET ECONOMICS *Ping*
Please FRmail alessandrofiaschi if you want to be added to or removed from this Free-market Economics ping list.
Posted on 10/09/2005 7:59:30 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
While the data show that all presidents presided over net increases in spending, George W. Bush is shown to be one of the biggest spenders of them all, even outpacing Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.
An excerpt from the report: "The increase in discretionary spending - that is, all nonentitlement programs - in Bush's first term was 48.5 percent in nominal terms. That's more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton's entire two terms (21.6 percent), and just higher than Lyndon Johnson's entire discretionary spending spree (48.3 percent)."
Please FRmail alessandrofiaschi if you want to be added to or removed from this Free-market Economics ping list.
Uh, homeland security and defense are not unecessary items, IMO, as the eggheads at Cato think.
What the heck. We all know what a terrific success the "Great Society" was.
Still don't understand how my republican party wound up with an LBJ/FDR clone at the top. We better find the real thing for 08 or alot of fiscal conservatives are just staying home.
Just goes to show that Bush is as addicted to alcohol as he is to spending. Someone should tell Laura to get Bush into Over Spenders Anonymous.
Just wait until his massive medicare drug give away kicks in!
-----
Yeah, along with the increasing number of ILLEGAL MEXICANS with their noses in the government pig trough...
Oh my God! you're right!
This president will set a career mark that will NEVER be broken!
What a legacy!
I can't get that d@#M $500,000 dollar fish painting out of my mind. We need new options. We need to be able to hold these idiots accountable.
/bushbot
Cato is Libertarian. Some of those guys are so dogmatic they think national defense should be privatised.
Cato Institute along with many other conservative think-tanks, simply certify the truth: Bush is not a fiscal conservative. Useless to say taht the last conservative for President was Ronald Reagan, a Goldwater Republican.
Cato isn't that OJ's Pimp?
The numbers for Bush are far, far worse. What is not taken into account is global welfare. I believe that this is not included in the categories mentioned. Also, cancelation of foreign debt is not being taken into account. Bush has canceled more foreign debt than LBJ could even dream about.
By far, Bush is the biggest global welfare Santa ever, and this Cato report does not even take that into account.
Republicans at one time = conservatives. This is why so many Republican faithful are stunned to the point of denial that the Republican leadership has gone so left that they are MORE LEFT THAN LEFTIST RADICALS like LBJ and Ted Kennedy.
FACT: Manslaughter Kennedy dicated how much to spend for Education in the first Bush Budget. Bush took Kennedy's figure and piled even more billions onto the final figure, even though Bush knew that the Department of Education was a corrupt, broken and dysfunctional department, and even though Bush knew his beloved school vouchers would be shot down in flames.
George Bush is no conservative. Every day, new facts bear that out. It is a bitter pill to swallow, and many loylaists here refuse to accept that reality.
Cato was dealing in facts and statistics.
You are dealing in denial.
I agree! Thanks for this post!
Dogmatic with a capitol "D". Ever try to argue a point with one? They've got a set book answer for everything. Don't worry, I like 'em anyway and they do valuable work.
I wonder what the non-discretionary spending numbers look like for Bush?
You cannot argue facts in the face of a personality cult.
Is it any surprise both were Texans. This is the state that claims to have something called conservative Democrats. Supposedly such people existed as recently as when Harriet was a Democrat. Now they have produced something called a Compassionate Conservative. Personally such labels mean nothing to me. LBJ and Bush were both backsplappers with a proven record of distributing the public wealth to anyone who knew the good ol' boy secret handshake, had a nickname, and used the endearment ' hey pardner'.
How much did discretionary spending go up under Roosevelt. I believe that is the last time we were ATTACKED!
Oh, its nice for the Cato Institute to lay this at George Bush's feet, but CONGRESS spends the money!!
BTTT!!!!!!
...the Republican CONGRESS spends the money , that President Bush could veto...
The CATO Institute?
Ha, they're nothing but closet Socialists, and this attack on the President is just further evidence.
I've been round and round with that charge. What President in his right mind would veto his own party's budget.
I dont know, but has that ever happened?
Oh please, have you ever heard of a Veto pen?
Apparently Bush never has.
Your statement is evidence that you know nothing about Cato! Many Cato experts were Reagan republicans, that is truly "fiscal conservatives"!
SO, your argument is that Bush is too weak in the face of his own COngress-controlling party?
Wow, that's a real vote of confidence!
Sarcasm buddy.
When Bush was asked directly about whether the Depts of Education, HHS Agriculture etc were constitutional, he answered, "those issues are settled". That was in 2000 before he was elected the first time. His budgets in Texas were huge, he was a big spender from the word go. The only way he got a rep as a conservative, is that the Madison Ave types spun his candidacy while he was guv.
Ok, my friend!
Just a reflection of the reality of the situation.
Congress sent him a larger budget than he requested every time. Same with the Ag bill, same with the Transportation bill. Same with the DHS monster.
What's a guy gonna do.
WHAT GIVES:
QUOTE FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE: WAS FOUNDED IN 1913 TO PROVIDER A SOUND AND MORE FLEXIBLE MONETARY SYSTEM...
CONCLUSION: BY CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: Paper Money and Tyranny http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr090503.htm
CONSTITUTIONAL MONEY IN OUR LIFE TIME - NOW!
Not to speak of the fact that Bush strongly resembles Alfred E. Nueman(Madd Mag.)
I get a feeling "somebody", "somewhere" is/are laughing at american conservatives from a dark smoky room..
Shuush, quite CAN YOU HEAR IT TOO...
What's a guy going to do?
He's going to showm some leadership and act.
But, I don't believe Bush is a weak guy.
I believe he wants all this spending, and CFR, and new entitlements, ad nauseum.
Simply, he's a big spender. He wasn't foreced or cajoled into this.
If he was, it'd be a worse reflection on him.
He has tried. No one listened.
After 9/11, fiscal restraint went out the window.
No one can deny that. But even with this, the Republican party has got to get more fiscal conservatives in Congress.
But, the Transportation bill showed that not spending money is no way to get reelected, and every congressman knows it.
If you want to stop the money hemorrhaging, you have to convince Congress. I don't think that is a fight our nation or George Bush could afford since 9/11.
I don't expect you to like that, but I do expect you to acknowledge it.
Are you saying that George Bush is a Posuer, a Shill and the congressional democrats secret weapon.?... and not basically but exactly a RINO.?.
Wow, when you look at the numbers, Reagan is third.
Clinton has the best total numbers, and Bush41 is second. Clinton's numbers are much better than Bush41, though, because he had less domestic spending while President Bush cut the military more than President Clinton.
The only defense I have to point out about President Bush41 is that Clinton had a better congress to work with.
This Country would have been so much better off with a President John Kerry or a President Howard Dean or.....
Spending needs to be cut; however, I am not sure CATO is sufficiently compensating for Bush having to deal with 9/11 at a time when the country was in recession.
He chose to spend his way out these events; IMO, he had no alternative.
If that is your only measure. I was looking at total spending.
Yes, Bush spends too much. He hasn't controlled our borders either. Sounds like a lot of other Presidents too.
President Bush cut taxes to get the country out of a recession and get the economy moving, and that was the right thing to do. However, he also boosted spending enormously and for that he has no excuse. He could easily have vetoed bloated spending bills from Congress and his vetoes would have been upheld. Pretty soon Congress would have gotten the message that they'd better pare things down themselves or they would not get any spending passed. Instead Bush has sent Congress the message that they can add all the pork they want and never give a thought as to whether Bush will veto it.
So let's see, Bush has signed McCain-Feingold; enacted steel tariffs; strong-armed Congress into approving the fantastically expensive Medicare drug entitlement program; signed an enormous farm subsidy program; joined forces with Senator Kennedy to greatly boost federal spending on education; signed the grease-laden transportation bill; etc.
A Republican Congress which was at constant war with President Clinton was able to slow down the increase in federal spending to the point where we had a cash-flow budget surplus and the current national debt was being paid down. The combination of a Republican President and a Republican Congress has resulted in skyrocketing spending, huge yearly budget deficits and a giant upward spike in the national debt.
That's "compassionate conservatism". That's today's Republican Party.
While I don't agree with the concept that the Gov't. way overspends, we should not ignore the financial consequences of 9/11 at the time we were in recession.
The discount rate wasn't reduced to around 1% for no reason.
PING
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.