Posted on 01/16/2009 8:01:30 PM PST by lonestar67
Limited the overall size of the Federal Government by restraining non-security spending, simultaneously focusing on key priorities and limiting non-security spending growth to 3 percent, slightly above the rate of inflation.
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
You have a lot of questions and no answers.
Bush has answers.
Spending was rising by 14% when bush arrived. It’s now less than 3 percent growth.
Please know I am laughing at your LOL.
You don't have many answers either.
Bush has answers.
Mostly spending.
Spending was rising by 14% when bush arrived. It’s now less than 3 percent growth.
Why not add in the emergency spending?
The "Emergency" Loophole
The budgetary impact of this "emergency" spending has been enormous. President Bush and Congress spent nearly a year arguing whether to cap fiscal year (FY) 2008 discretionary spending at $933 billion or $955 billion. Congress eventually agreed to the President's $933 billion level—and then both sides agreed to add $257 billion in "emergency" discretionary spending to bring the final 2008 total to $1,190 billion. The remaining $76 billion went toward entitlement programs.[2] Only in dysfunctional Washington will politicians fight for a year to save $22 billion in discretionary spending and then quickly agree to spend $257 billion.
According to this, non-defense, non-homeland security spending rose from $333 billion in 2001 to $446 billion in 2005. That's 6% growth, not 3%. If discretionary non-defense, non-homeland security spending was frozen at $446 billion thru this year, that's still 3.7% growth.
And let's ignore the cost of the new drug benefit, because that's an entitlement. LOL!
Please know I am laughing at your LOL.
And I'm laughing at your poor math skills.
I am still laughing at your laughter.
You don’t have answers. Bush does. Bush actually did something. He was not just sitting a keyboard timing mean comments about the President. He actually did something.
I have provided repeated references to various ways Bush controlled spending.
None of your analysis rebuts the cited points made by me.
Was the spending Emergency spending?
Indeed it was.
I want to commend you for doing some research. The Heritage foundation is a great source. However, their best guesses on Feb 6, 2006 don’t cut it for this debate. Because the SPECULATON that they engage in regarding 2006, 2007, and 2008 is now historical fact. The data I am citing from January 2009 can see what Heritage has to guess about.
Again, there is a simple litmus test. Do Democrats believe that Bush is cutting programs or denying adequate funding?
Yes.
This means the political alternative is more spending. Bush constrains spending.
This just in. . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28691801/
It looks like the bailout is already saving the economy.
I knew you would want to read the good news for President Bush.
He did lots of things. Controlling spending was not one of them.
I have provided repeated references to various ways Bush controlled spending.
I must have missed that. Where?
None of your analysis rebuts the cited points made by me.
Except the incorrect 3% number you're agreeing with.
Was the spending Emergency spending? Indeed it was.
Maybe the White House ignored the emergency spending when they fabricated the 3% figure?
However, their best guesses on Feb 6, 2006 don’t cut it for this debate. Because the SPECULATON that they engage in regarding 2006, 2007, and 2008 is now historical fact.
Great. So what was the non-defense, non-homeland security spending in 2001 and the latest number?
The data I am citing from January 2009 can see what Heritage has to guess about.
The data you cite makes a claim, 3% growth. I didn't see the actual spending numbers. You have a link?
Do Democrats believe that Bush is cutting programs or denying adequate funding? Yes.
So, let me get this straight, if spending is supposed to rise 10% and it only rises 9.5% and the Democrats whine and bitch and moan, that means Bush cut programs or denied adequate funding?
Your math skills rely on Democrat whining?
This means the political alternative is more spending. Bush constrains spending.
Except for the spending he doesn't constrain.
That’s great news. Doesn’t make your 3% number any less fictional.
I always thought the "new tone in Washington" was a slick of saying a "bipartisan raid on the Treasury." Kind of how "comprehensive immigration reform" is a slick way of saying "amnesty."
I remember how W's early State of the Union addresses were really laundry lists of new programs and how much he was spending on them. Perhaps I should dig out one of them for the last of W's spending defenders. Even the most serious Bush-bots concede the spending issue.
Bush did hold the line on spending for red headed, left handed, dyslexic, special education, early childhood learning programs.
OMB 2009:
“Limited the overall size of the Federal Government by restraining non-security spending, simultaneously focusing on key priorities and limiting non-security spending growth to 3 percent, slightly above the rate of inflation.”
I am not sure what you are looking for here but mine are numbers from 2001 through 2009 present.
Your source is Feb 2006. It makes projections for 2006, 2007, 2008 budgets.
What numbers? Link?
I think the media destroyed bush just like they made bamaboy a winner.
The only link I have is the original link that this thread is based upon. OMB generates this report and it is the most current report.
Stick around for a couple years and see what you think of Bush.
So you have no numbers. And the numbers I posted, old as they were, show growth higher than 3%.
OMB generates this report and it is the most current report.
And it included no actual numbers. Glad we cleared that up.
The original report is numbers. It is not a break down like the Heritage report which it concedes is a projection even in the historical numbers.
In the OMB report offered just six months ago [I gave you the most current one originally] it is noted
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/09msr.pdf
that the President proposed reduction in growth to 1%. This means that spending limits at this level were not accepted.
Keep in mind, that this conversation is predicated on your anti-constitutional notion that President controls spending.
I have demonstrated that President Bush has exerted numerous fiscally conservative constraints on higher spending. You say its not enough. Congress wanted more spending except in areas such as the military. The Bush administration kept it down.
I could be wrong but fortunately, your brilliant hypothesis will be tested starting Janaury 20. We will discover how Bush really increased spending dramatically and Democrats reduce spending. I look forward to being proven wrong.
Yup, no doubt Obama will be worse, but he is president cuz Bush was a f-up
Excellent link. Shows total discretionary funding in 2008 was $940.9 billion. But when emergency funds are added, the number is almost $1.2 trillion. As shown in post #82.
Keep in mind, that this conversation is predicated on your anti-constitutional notion that President controls spending.
You imagined I held that notion just as you imagined you had real numbers.
I have demonstrated that President Bush has exerted numerous fiscally conservative constraints on higher spending.
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!
You say its not enough.
I think that's self evident.
I could be wrong but fortunately, your brilliant hypothesis will be tested starting Janaury 20.
Your bad math will still be wrong on January 20th.
We will discover how Bush really increased spending dramatically and Democrats reduce spending.
The Democrats will be worse, that doesn't make Bush a budget cutter.
It does make Bush a budget cutter because Congress determines spending.
The President cannot control or reduce spending.
The President can propose and argue. In so doing, he can limit the Constitutionally assigned power of the Congress.
Spending was increasing at a much higher rate when Bush came into office. It is increasing at a much lower rate as he leaves office. That is fiscal conservatism. You cannot change that.
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.