No, he didn't. They took out the defense spending.
Posted on 10/04/2008 11:28:41 PM PDT by KingJaja
Hank Paulson’s bail-out of the financial industry will cost taxpayers $700bn. Some believe that the bail-out signals an abandonment of the Reagan Republican goal of limited government. That debate is under way.
Those who think Republicans have ditched their limited-government aspirations point to the Bush administration’s reflexive “throw money at it” response to every crisis. In 2001 the first response to September 11 was not to attack al-Qaeda, but to pass a $20bn domestic spending programme. The response to Hurricane Katrina was $85bn in public spending. The collapse of AIG, the insurance giant, cost $85bn; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae a further $42bn. And now we have the pièce de résistance – the opening bid of $700bn for the financial bail-out of Wall Street. Got a problem? We throw money at it.
Under George W. Bush federal spending rose from $1,789bn in 2000 to an estimated $2,955bn for 2008; from 18.4 per cent of gross domestic product to 20.8 per cent. In 1996 Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over. Perhaps Mr Bush has, on behalf of the modern Republican party, raised the white flag in surrender to bigger government.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Although Bush did not make use of the veto pen when he should have, he did have to play games with the Dems in order to get funding for the war. Sux big time.
It is a win for conservatives. They voted against this and can run on that.
FR Keyword: moneylist
This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
To join, send Freepmail to rabscuttle385.
We wouldn’t be in this mess if it wasn’t for the Dems supporting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This is all the Democrats fault for pressing so hard for affordable homes for the poor who could not afford them!
"Executive order" works for the entire executive branch. They can only be rescinded by executive order or overturned by 2/3 vote in both houses. Bush is boss.
yitbos
And even so he did “OK.”
You must consider that 8 years is a long time and when you take out defense, intelligence, and other national security spending as well as adjust for inflation, you realize that spending didn’t go crazy as some pretend it to be. We are spending a lot more not only on defense, but also on homeland security in general. Even the FBI and other organizations saw huge budget increases after 911 to establish more robust anti terrorist programs etc.
The new catchy but stupid phrase by our media and moron politicians is that “You can’t X your way out of something.”
“We can’t kill our way to success in Iraq.”
“We can’t drill our way out of of this energy problem.”
“We can’t spend our way out of this economy.”
Truth is, yes we can, in every case. It’s all about catchy phrases though. -IMHO
bookmark
Fanny and freddie were just playing the game already set in motion with the "Community development initiative". The blame goes to all those who developed that scheme, which forced banks to lend money to people who otherwize could not qualify.
Think Acorn, Ayers and friends, Obama, Democrats- It goes back before houses started climbing. This risky/bad loan stuff wasn't just mortgages, it was loans of all sorts, cars, personal loans, credit cards. Every bad loan ever made to those who previously couldn't qualify before the Community development initiative came into effect.
Freddy and Fanny took a lot of these mortgages, bundled them up into larger packs and sold them to the bond markets, where they were bought up by other financial organizations all over the world.
Anyways, eentually the whole system became jammed up with these high risk loans that the banks and other companies holding them couldn't use to borrow money on, resulting in a liquitidy problem. So taxpayers are actually paying to guarantee their own loans, or rather the securities they were sold as.
Republicans administrations have been ditching Reagan ever since GHWB, and McCain is no different... The sooner we quit electing Bakerites and put a Reaganite back in office the sooner we will start back toward smaller government.
And the same goes for Congress too- It was largely the libertarians and Reagan Conservatives who voted NO the other day...
Gallagher on his Sunday 10/5 am rebroadcast heard over WIND am 560 Chicago while citing the first House vote was spinning the dems vote against it. Did ask paraphrased “If MSM asked any of the Dems why they voted against bailout ?”
Well it was a procedural vote so they could lard it up the second time around proof is the 2nd vote when the Democrat leadership including Obama and Pelosi jumped in and twisted some arms. Presenting it the way he’s done mimimizes the effort McCain put into the House bill reducing the pork.
Here’s where ideology gets in the way of practical politics for he dwells on the “bipartisan” aspect of the vote against it because there’s a “conservative” POV that it wasn’t needed. Instead of hammering the phoneys because if the 1st vote passed the House it certainly would not have been as bad as the 2nd.
..http://www.theusmat.com/
And 10 million, overpriced and unsold homes had nothing to do with it???? You and I must have taken different economics course out of different books. The bogus price was driven so high that people could no longer buy even when the lenders started the bogus balloon loans.
>The sooner we quit electing Bakerites and put a Reaganite back in office the sooner we will start back toward smaller government.<
Smaller government does NOT appear to be what Americans want these days.
No, he didn't. They took out the defense spending.
After you stick in the bailout, bush’s spending will look like a moon shot.
Oh, come on. Bush didn't spend that money Congress did.
You know this is sarcasm, right?
LOL, yes I know that’s why he was never on TV asking for it!!!
Spending money on fluff is what is killing this country. Grants, Foreign Aid you name it. Nobody but individual citizens should be allowed to donate to candidates and the candidate must represent them. The GOP must run on a Energy Independence, Balanced Budget, Reduced Spending, and Low Taxes platform. If the GOP is unwilling to get together and go towards this goal they will always be in second place fighting for relevancy.
You Lefties are all alike always blame the other guy, but it is never you. McCain brought a bill to the floor of the Senate and the Democrats blocked it. It was the Republicans who were calling for more regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not some but all the Democrats were against it!
McCain had nothing to do with the House Republicans position at all. McCain wanted compromise.
Here’s where ideology gets in the way of practical politics for he dwells on the “bipartisan” aspect of the vote against it because there’s a “conservative” POV that it wasn’t needed. Instead of hammering the phoneys because if the 1st vote passed the House it certainly would not have been as bad as the 2nd.
The point is that there should not have been a single Republican vote for that POS, not a one. That it originated in a Republican administration's request is an offense, and a direct refutation of everything Republicans (supposedly) believe in wrt small government and free market forces, as a matter of the most basic of principles.
The bill would *not* have passed without REPUBLICAN support, as the Democrats readily admitted- They did not want to have it hung around their necks exclusively, and would not pass it without bicameral, bipartisan support.
If you care to lay blame, lay blame upon the RINOs in the House and Senate- McCain among them- who allowed this abhorrent legislation to pass. Had they remained true, and followed the House Conservatives' lead, things would have turned out much better, and this election would have been won, with Republican coattails, too.
As it is, it cost McCain at least 6 points, as the FICONS begin to abandon him, which will continue, and will be impossible to repair. And the Republican Congress has all but sealed it's fate. Smooth.
And did they also include the FBI, CIA, NSA, FEMA (Which is still “non-defense”).......
No, they didn't capture all the costs associated with national security. And yes, they do compare total money spent not inflation adjusted in this article mentioned...... It's BS. BS that you happen to agree with so you'll tout and stand behind, but nonetheless BS. We are in a war, and this particular war requires immense spending on things like explosive detection systems at airports, new personnel imagery systems, armored cockpits, massive increases and the formation of all new programs at the FBI.............. Spending for FEMA as an example has risen by 11% just over last year and little of this is captured in the defense budget.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/2009just.pdf
The CIA budget has grown since 1998 (26.7B) by nearly 1/3.
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=34749
The formation of ICE in 2003; http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/factsheets/2008budgetfactsheet.pdf
There has been a sweeping and across the board beefing up of domestic intelligence (Something that domestically was really not done extensively in the past like now), federal law enforcement, foreign intelligence, CBP, TSA, Secret Service, Coast Guard (Not rolled into defense budget)........... Hell, there wasn't even such a thing as a Domestic Nuclear Detection Office before 2005 (Which is still in its infancy).
Bridges to nowhere have always been built, and they are not built any more today than before, but we will spend 420 Billion on defense this year plus probably a supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan; and yes, we are spending massively on domestic intelligence, security, and disaster relief/response capabilities like no time post WWII.
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.