Skip to comments.Fed Spending Up 40 Percent Under Bush
Posted on 11/17/2006 1:50:24 PM PST by Reagan is King
click here to read article
Deficits should have been a priority Bush Agenda item - among other things. Leardership is determining the agenda and executing. The Bushies have a problem with that "vision thing."
May be we need to ask Jim Robinson to enhance the forum so we can have the posts with some audios. For example in your case when you said Vote Constitution Party we should have some majestic music playing in the background to reflect the power of your post (sarcasm beyond belief).
Yes, so very true. Bush started off wrong with the $400,000,000,000.00 Education Bill he let Ted 'Hiccup" Kennedy write. Things went downhill from there with our earmark happy Republican Congress.
One other thing to remember: Even before the Iraq war, even before 9/11, President Bush had to start the rebuilding of the military after the massive (and actual, not theoretical) cuts to the military budget under Klinton.
The easiest to follow and most fundamental tenant of the Contract with America was that laws would apply equally to members of Congress.
When Hastert forgot that... he Republican majority formally eliminated its reason for existence.
"he cut taxes and Congress kept spending anyway."
Via legislation the President can sign or veto, correct?
At least the left wing Socialists in the Democrat party can honestly say that is what their constituents elected them to do.
Republicans... not so much.
Excellent and correct point...we're fighting a war, all of that expense is on the budget.
Also, where's the reportage about the daffycit being cut in half over the past two years because of the HUGE increase in tax revenues brought about by the tax reduction act?
Works everytime it's tried.
Can you drink that koolaid without slurping please?
Back out all Anti Terrorist funds shelled out as a result of 9-11, including Iraq. Now add Katrina, what' the revised total?
"Can you drink that koolaid without slurping please?"
Buddy, if you think there is a such thing as "small government", you are the one drinking the Kool-aid. Please, show me "small governemnt" somewhere in this world.
Now if you would like to show me where I am wrong, please do.
No, Reagan cut taxes, but he had a dem congress which drastically raised spending.
Bush but taxes, but had a republican congress that drastically raised spending.
But Bush only vetoed one bill. Stem cell funding, of all things.
He could have vetoed the budgets, and insisted that there was no "bridge to nowhere" or other earmarks. But he did not. He passed the budgets.
Except for stem cells.
What an ass.
Some people do have a short memory or is it selective memory.
Regan had a dem congress to contend with so he had a scapegoat. Although President Bush did lobby for some lower cuts a veto might have straightened out the whole lot.
I for one did see some Republicans on the floor recanting to the Dems who cried about the perception of cuts in entitlements. They tried to explain that a cut from an increase is not a loss. They lost that argument. As a matter of fact, they lost a lot of arguments that way.
If you ever elect a Libertarian to any election that is contested, please let us know.
Could it be because we are in a war time economy? Why does everyone forget that.
I do not bash the President. Yet when policy decisions are contrary to conservative opinion, it is important to have constructive discussion. Maybe you saw the Harriet Myers, DPW, and Immigration threads. Those degenerated into chaos, and many FRiends left or were banned. The President has done a superb job with tax cuts, and international security, except with Mexico and central/south America. Somehow Social Security reform fell to the wayside. The failure of Republican advisor's to capitalize on an impressive job and economic rebound harmed the party. Conservatism was redefined by Democrats. It is a disgrace.
You mean under Ronald Reagan, the Conservatives' conservative, the Gov't grew?
No. That's absolutely false. Federal spending on poverty programs in 1991 dollars increased from $140 billion in 1982 to $180 billion in 1991, an annual growth rate of 3 percent. In other words, the welfare state grew under Reagan-and the liberals are still complaining!
well if Bush baby finds his veto pen, the Dems won't be able to raise the spending.....but alas, Bush is a bigger spender then Clinton.....go figure....and why I'm pissed at the Pubs......
Yes it has, but look at it as a % of the total...I'm NOT HAPPY either with the increase in discretional spending, it's just $$$ to the black hole of waste and corruption.
We must, however, look at the entire context and not just one side.
"Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are "on a path to bankrupt our country, said Feulner. Medicare spending alone is projected to rise $112 billion over the next two years to nearly half a trillion dollars."
Reread my response please. I said it would still be high because Bush hadn't used his veto pen. But, it wouldn't be nearly the monster it is without the war and Katrina. If you have a problem with that statement, tough. I am not an apologist for big spending. I'm just making a statement.
You apparently are happy with Reagan's terrible performance with Federal Spending. But Reagan was a far greater spender than Bush. And Reagan did not have a war on Terror to pay for. He had the cold war.... and that meant no troops were in combat. P>You should change your name to Reagan should be de-throned.
Reagan raised taxes... and a bunch! He was still one of our Greatest Presidents!
"Vote Constitution Party"
ELECT dims and hildebeast!
Bush but taxes, but had a republican congress that drastically raised spending.
Over the course of his administration, Reagan cut non defense related discretionary spending in real dollars. It is popular to blame the budget deficits on defense spending, which did contribute, but the bulk of it came from skyrocketing entitlements. In 1981, Medicaid and Medicare cost 55 billion dollars. In 1989, 117 billion dollars. Social Security spending increased from 138 to 230 billion dollars year. All told, entitlement spending increased from 370 to 655 billion dollars in that time.
The same thing is going on now, only faster. Medicaid cost 129 billion dollars in 2001. This year it will cost 200 billion. Medicare has increased from 214 to 387 billion dollars a year. Social Security from 429 to 581 billion. All told, entitlement spending has increased by well over 500 billion dollars per year now and that number will be over 700 billion dollars per year by the end of Bush's term.
And confronted with this burgeoning catastrophe, President Bush made the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years the centerpiece of his campaign and ultimately passed a prescription drug bill that will be costing taxpayers 100 billion dollars a year by 2011.
Against that, all the bridges to nowhere we'll ever build and the non human costs of the war in Iraq for that matter are chump change.
Bush has increased them by 25% in 5 years. It is in fact even worse than that because the prescription drug handout plan is hidden as mandatory entitlement spending. Tally that as non defense related spending at the administration's discretion and the increase is more like 33%.
Bush is no Reagan.
Reagan had the excuse of a democrat Congress...
Who appropiates ALL federal money and spends it..
And... Bush is no Reagan..
Every year Reagan presented a big spending budget that was very near what the Democrats wanted.
Every year Tip O'Neil would say that the Reagan Budget was dead on arrival. Then late in the year Reagan and O'Neil would negotiate and Reagan would "Reluctantly" agree to a Democrat budget that was only slightly larger than the Proposed Reagan budget. Then Reagan would declare victory.
But the truth is Reagan proposed budgets that would have increased spending by nearly as much as the finally adopted budgets did. The last carter budget was for 591 Billion dollars. The last Reagan budget was 1.133 Trillion dollars.
You Can claim that Reagan had to deal with a Democrat Congress... but you have to admit that Reagan was able to convince the Democrats to cut taxes, but he did not even try to convince them to reduce spending.
Reagan always introduced his proposed budgets by telling us he was only trying to reduce the rate of increase in the budget. His budget would decrease the rate of increase by 1 or 2 percent .. then he would sign on to the Democrats adding the 1 or 2 percent back. Reagan was "never" able to cut spending. He never made good use of the veto.
The truth is Reagan started his Republican Career as a RINO. Reagan in his 1980 campaign told every worker during speeches in the industrial Midwest that he was the only candidate to run for president who was a member in good standing of a labor union. He also told every group of workers he spoke to that he was the only candidate for president to ever be elected twice to the presidency of his union. He would add... "If you think I didn't negotiate good contracts for my members I invite you to ask any of the members or any of the companies with which I negotiated." "I would note that that I was reelected to the presidency of my Union"
Reagan also told every audience in Ohio, Michigan and other industrial states that his political hero was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He told conservative audiences his hero was Calvin Coolidge. But he told union workers that his political views had not changed. FDR was still his hero. He told them it was the Democratic party that had changed. That is why he got over half the union workers votes.
Reagan in 1964 had such a reputation as a RINO that when he decided to run for Governor of California both advisers Ed Meese and Cap Weinberger were afraid he could not win the Republican primary. The Republican base in California does not nominate RINOs.
They decided that one way to reduce the RINO reputation was to have Reagan speak for Barry Goldwater at the Republican convention in 1964. He did so and from that point out the media painted Reagan as a Goldwater Conservative. But he was not. After he was elected president he never had anything to do with Goldwater. He never invited him to the white house. He had Tip O'Neil the Democratic speaker of the house over nearly every week.
It is funny to note that during the 1980 campaign the reporters on the campaign trail had a pool to see who could get Reagan to say Barry Goldwater's name. The closest anyone came was Reagan one time referred to him as the Senator from Arizona.. but did not say his name.
Reagan openly ran in 1980 on both the domestic and Foreign policy of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He proposed the tax cuts of JFK for curing the economy and he proposed "the defend any friend and oppose any foe in the name of freedom" spoken by JFK in his inauguration speech.
If you think Reagan was conservative then so was Roosevelt, Truman and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Reagan while in office as president governed exactly as they would have governed. Cut taxes and increase spending to fix the economy, and oppose the Soviet Union to win the cold war.
What Reagan didn't do was govern like Nixon, Ford, or Carter. He governed like the RINO he was.
I am sure the Democrats are going to cut spending as soon as they can. /s
No mention of the 36% increase in revenues as well. But we wouldn't want to be fair now would we?
Second, Bushs lack of philosophical commitment to limited government has set the tone in Washington, where the GOP was losing its will on spending before Clinton left town. Rhetoric matters, and there the divide between Reagan and Bush becomes a yawning chasm. Bush has for the most part carefully distanced himself from the conservative anti-statism of Reagan and Goldwater. Its hard to imagine Reagan ever saying, as Bush did in 2003, that government has got to move whenever somebody hurts. It was a recent Democratic president who was interested in feeling our pain.
How about a 36% increase in revenue AND even a still bloated 10% increase in spending. I'll bet more Republicans would still be in office if he had even come close to that number. I support Bush on lots of issues but spending like a Democrat is not one of them. He turned off lots of conservatives with his entitlement spending. Of course, he also had a war to fight which accounts for much of his budget and he can spend whatever it takes in that area IMHO.
Not exactly what I had in mind when I voted Republican.
But it seems that there might have a bunch of Americans who had this in mind when they DIDN'T vote republican...........
Hey quit your Bush bashing.
Cannot bash "Chief Jorge big-spender" or you won't get your dose toaster.
I generally refrain from 'bush bashing' until someone tries comparing him to RWR. I won't bother paraphrasing Loyd Benson, but you get my drift.
Agreed. It's who didn't vote that I think made the difference in lots of races. Spending, immigration, Iraq, scandals, kept some people home. Changing for the positive any one of the four would have helped greatly. Unfortunately, Pres. Bush was on the wrong side of the first two and had little control of the other two. I'm not sure the Congressional Republicans have learned anything from the election. Let's hope so, we need more real conservatives in leadership positions.
FY Federal Revenues Adjusted to FY 2000 dollars 2001 1,991 B 1,946 B 2002 1,853 B 1,778 B 2003 1,783 B 1,667 B 2004 1,880 B 1,713 B 2005 2,154 B 1,898 B 2006 (est) 2,285 B 1,951 B 2007 (est) 2,416 B 2,018 B
I don't believe that legislation has passed, has it? There are several competing bills, each doing something different.
I live in Northern Virginia, so no.
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.