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 ...
I think the key points are these:
discretionary non security spending was held to less than 3% per year-- from 2001-2009. Saying Bush is worse than Clinton is misleading because Clinton cut defense which is not a conservative funding strategy. Bush did hold the line on spending and I think Paleo cons are deliberately cooperating with the Marxists on hiding this from the public.
Bush implemented earmark reforms last year and for the new year. Bush did reduce the deficit down to a less than 2% level of GDP.
The bailout could yield a profit for the government when it is paid back. That is what happened the last time a major bailout like this was done.
Does the senior prescription drug benefit figure in there somewhere? It’s huge.
That's not a small thing.
There is a discussion in the document on page 19:
The key excerpt for me was:
“Projected costs of Part D are lower than originally estimated. Projected net Part D
spending between 2004 and 2013 is approximately $240 billion, or about 38 percent lower, than
originally projected. This decrease is due in part to competition among private plans encouraged
by the Administration. Average Part D premiums in 2008 are 40 percent lower than original
estimates. “
I personally do not think a prescription drug benefit was avoidable as part of medicare. I think Bush implemented a cost control system based on competition that will make it a model for solving future insolvencies in other programs. The program is already coming in under budget projections from its original founding.
The last bailout was much smaller, in relative terms, however. And the last bailout was made back when the culture was to pay such things back. In our handout culture we have today, the bailouts have as much chance of being paid back as I have of running the Boston Marathon in under 2.5 hours.
Good lord people. Give it up. He has been an unmitigated financial disaster. The government will not be making any money on the toxic assets its overpaying for. Be realistic.
We got there primarily by increasing spending on homeland defense, the war on terror, and restoring legitimate funding to our military cut by President Clinton.
For most of his administration the budget was running ahead of schedule to reduce the debt.
At present planning in 2009, the budget will still turn positive in 2012 and begin to again reduce the national debt.
There are a number of reforms implemented by Bush that prevented the Debt from climbing much more due to unregulated spending programs.
No it won’t but the banks will be liable for the funds loaned. They will make up the funds in other investments.
Could I also urge that you give up because I will not.
Similar things were said about the Savings and Loan crisis during the 1980s.
Once again, the naysayers were wrong and America’s financial system was not only restored but it flourished.
We have immediate indications of this in seeing the dollar rise in the midst of this financial crisis. Naysayers have predicted [hoped for because they hate this country] that the dollar would be abandoned as a currency. Moreover, the Chinese would abandon our treasury notes. The same thing again was said of Japan the juggernaut in the 1980s.
All of this naysayiing was false.
In fact, let me be perfectly clear.
Every single catastrophic prediction of the economic end of the United States has been proven diametrically, and exponentially wrong.
Have you lost all sense of reason? Sorry, but you can't just keep adding debt upon debt upon debt and expect there to be no problems. Comparing this issue to the savings and loan problems in the 1980s is specious reasoning, at best, and as for current devaluation of the dollar, the dollar is being saved by the fact of general devaluation (note: the yuan is starting to tank, as well), not by some magical ability for the US dollar to defy the laws of economics.
No, we're most likely not going to see the latest gazillions in bailouts ever paid back. We're going to eat it, and move on. To my knowledge, nobody's predicting the catastrophic end of the US economy. But it does come time to face facts that even the US economy is only so big, and only so much able to absorb stupid economic decision-making before it reacts against the stress it's put under.
Well yes, people who understand economics at least somewhat agree with you. People who don't blithely assume that the lucky rabbit's foot of the American economy is simply going to magically get around all of the unprecedented stress and stupidity with which it has been assault for the past several years, all because "it's never broke before!"
And we got there by spending like crazy. Next someone will come up with pork was not really pork. Sell the BS, some where's else. I'm not buying.
In Bush’s last business day in office(today) the taxpayer plunked another $20 billion into Bank of America and backstopped $120 billion in bad loans...to save them from a dumb acquisition they made...ONLY 3 MONTHS AGO! Bush provided no leadership in economic or domestic policy from day one.
BINGO!!!!
More hyperbolic Bush bashing.
Bush warned beginning in 2002 that Fannie Mae needed more restraint and regulation in lending. Warnings were issued repeated along with specific recommendations for reform.
Barney Frank and others scoffed and mocked these suggestions and blocked their implementation.
I am still curious to know. At what point do any of the naysayers have a burden of proof? There are no empirical examples of catastrophic debt crises swamping the United STates.
The national debt exploded under Reagan. Democrats made exactly the arguments we see in this thread. Guess what? They were flat out wrong.
It is possible for the economy and budget to move in a positive debt reducing direction by 2012. How do we know this?
Because the US economy has done this literally dozens of times.
But no. This time is special. It really is the end. It is the absolute end and all of us are going to just scratch one anothers eyes out and starve to death rather than contribute to a productive growing economy. Its time for everyone to reach that consensus.
Additionally, if I can ask another question . Once we all agree that its completely over, then what.
Do we climb back into our Y2K bunkers? What exactly is the plan once we convince everyone that we are doomed.
There is no empirical evidence for these claims but they must be accepted . That sure is great debating position.
Oh yeah— a wimp like his dad was.
More silly nonsense.
Bin laden is hiding in a cave because Bush is not a wimp.
Saddam is dead because Bush is not a wimp.
Zarqawi met a 500 pd JDAM beecause bush is not a wimp.
Charles Taylor was removed from power because Bush is not a wimp.
More than 500,000 of America’s finest volunteered to fight for the man who is not a loser and not a wimp.
You bang away mindlessly and anonymously at a keyboard because you are free to do so. Bush kept you and your keyboard from being vaporized by people who know what a paper tiger is.
You like real men who rape women like President Clinton?
You are free to do so because President Bush is not a wimp.
Such petty pathetic insults.
Any chance you will develop a back bone in the near future and defend the character of your President?
Its a poor debating point to attribute to me beliefs or comments I didn’t make. You proclaimed Bush to a good fiscal manager. I disputed that, because it is self evident to almost everyone who follows such issues. All other comments you make above about my beliefs are wrong, I didn’t make em, so knock it off.
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.