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.
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.