Bush leads country on spending spree.

Detroit News ^ | 12/28/03 | Tony Snow

[jimkress]

When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can

[arete]

Arete, I am shocked that you think that these people would tell a big one.

This has got to be one of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled on the sheepsters. Heck, Kay isn't even looking for WMD anymore. Rummy reassigned his men. Oh yeah, like we'd ever permit a democracy in Iraq. It'll be another two bit puppet dicator just like Afghanistan. The lies are just getting too outrageous anymore. Should be interesting to see how they dig themselves out of this hole.

Richard W.

[Publius6961]

pssst!
High fiving with Extremely Extreme Extremist; Wilfredo T LeBoy is a dead giveaway.
It doesn't work with the sandmaggots here, and it won't work with you, either.

Tag team trolls are gone rather quickly, here at FR.

[MEG33]

Some folks don't know he campaigned as a compassionate conservative.I asked one naysayer when the last time the nation was governed properly under the Constitution..1788!

[arete]

To vote Republican, you must have an IQ of at least 32.

LOL My gosh, how we going to squeeze GW in at that high level?

Richard W.

[templar]

Scroll up or down to appropriate years.

OK, so maybe I'm just plain dumb. I scrolled up and down all over the place but cannot find anything anywhere that tells me (in dollars, yen, ounces of gold, peso's, etc.) what the GDP was for, say, 1982,83,84, etc. Can you point it out please? All I want to do is look it up and see how many dollars the GDP was for those years. I have no problem finding the information on the internet for 1991 onward, just prior to 1991. To make any kind of sensible comparison I need comparaitve figures to work with.

[Publius6961]

How about State Department a** hole in a suit?

What's going on?
First you claim a Pakistani worked for the State Department...
Now you're claiming that you worked for the State Department?

Hard to believe. How can they be that careless? Was this during Maggie Halfbright's tenure?

[jimkress]

The Constitution Party is the best alternative to the tryanny of the Republicans and Democrats. If you refuse to act, even in the face of the suppression of your liberties (e.g. CFR), then all I can do is share the wisdom of Sam Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

Samuel Adams, "American Independence," 1 August 1776 Occasion: Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia.

[Publius6961]

LOL My gosh, how we going to squeeze GW in at that high level?

Dear boy, we don't have to squeeze him anywhere.
He's our leader. He's our president. Sandmaggots hate him. Sandmaggot lovers also hate him.

Deal with it.

[Sabertooth]

Wherever it leads...

Link

Thanks. I thought your numbers looked familiar.

Let's take another look at your post at #38 on this thread....

Reagan's discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP for his first three years in office was 10.1%, 10.1% and 10.3%. Bush's discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP was 6.5% in 2001 and 7.1% in 2002. The 2003 figure is still incomplete.

So, 10% of your paycheck was going toward federal discretionary spending during the first 3 years of Reagan. For Bush the figure is 7% of your paycheck going toward federal discretionary spending and that includes a very expensive WOT!

Freedom is truth!

Well, President Reagan had a more expensive Cold War to fight, and we aren't really talking about Defense Spending anyway, since most here favor a strong national defense; we're talking about non-defense discretionary spending.

Here's the CBO table from which you gleaned your figures...

Discretionary Outlays, 1962-2002
(As a percentage of GDP)
	Defense		International		Domestic		Total
1962	9.2		1.0		2.5		12.7
1963	8.9		0.9		2.7		12.5
1964	8.6		0.7		3.0		12.3
1965	7.4		0.7		3.2		11.3
1966	7.8		0.7		3.4		11.9
1967	8.9		0.7		3.6		13.1
1968	9.4		0.6		3.6		13.6
1969	8.7		0.4		3.2		12.4
1970	8.1		0.4		3.4		11.9
1971	7.3		0.3		3.7		11.3
1972	6.7		0.4		3.8		10.9
1973	5.9		0.4		3.7		9.9
1974	5.6		0.4		3.6		9.6
1975	5.6		0.5		4.0		10.1
1976	5.2		0.4		4.5		10.1
1977	4.9		0.4		4.6		10.0
1978	4.7		0.4		4.8		9.9
1979	4.7		0.4		4.6		9.6
1980	4.9		0.5		4.7		10.1
1981	5.2		0.4		4.5		10.1
1982	5.8		0.4		3.9		10.1
1983	6.1		0.4		3.8		10.3
1984	5.9		0.4		3.5		9.9
1985	6.1		0.4		3.5		10.0
1986	6.2		0.4		3.3		10.0
1987	6.1		0.3		3.1		9.5
1988	5.8		0.3		3.1		9.3
1989	5.6		0.3		3.1		9.0
1990	5.2		0.3		3.2		8.7
1991	5.4		0.3		3.3		9.0
1992	4.9		0.3		3.4		8.6
1993	4.5		0.3		3.4		8.2
1994	4.1		0.3		3.4		7.8
1995	3.7		0.3		3.4		7.4
1996	3.5		0.2		3.2		6.9
1997	3.3		0.2		3.1		6.7
1998	3.1		0.2		3.0		6.4
1999	3.0		0.2		3.0		6.3
2000	3.0		0.2		3.1		6.3
2001	3.1		0.2		3.2		6.5
2002	3.4		0.3		3.5		7.1
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Up front, let's understand that President's aren't responsible for the budget in the year in which they take office. That is the rtesponsibility of the outoing President. So President Reagan's Budgets are highlighted in red, from 1982 through 1989.

As of this writing, President Bush only has one bodget in this table for which he is responsible, 2002, which I've highlighted in blue. I've bold faced the numbers for non-defense and total discretionary spending of their outgoing predecessors, Presidents Carter and Clinton.

Note that in the President Carter's last year, non-defnese discretionary spending stood at 4.5% of GDP. It immediately dropped to 3.9% in President Reagan's first year, and held firm or declined in every one of his budgets, eventually ending up at 3.1% of GDP.

In President Bush's first year, he increased non-defense discretionary spending from President Clinton's final 3.2% of GDP, up to 3.5%, higher than it's been since 1985, when President Reagan was bringing it down.

President Reagan, like President Bush, had a legislature with only one chamber held by the GOP. Yet non-defense discretionary spending only declined under President Reagan, while it has increased under President Bush.

Looking at total discretionary spending, we see a 0.6% jump for President Bush over President Clinton, from 6.5% to 7.1%.

With President Reagan, however, we see that his total discretionary spending peaked in 1983 at 10.3%, only 0.2% higher than President Carter's final 10.1%, before dropping to 9.0% at the end of his term.

Again, President Reagan's figures include Cold War defense spending, which was a more expensive enterprise than the War on Terror.

Then numbers for President Bush are two few for a good sample, but one certainly can't extrapolate a trend of fiscal restraint from them.

As you said, "freedom is truth."

[templar]

Nonsense. Any negative impact from cutting spending ...

here's a link to an article I found posted on another forum this AM. I'd be interested in your comments on it, link . I really don't know how to either support or ctiticize it, but it does cause me to think about it's implications.

[arete]

Dick to FreeRepublic: Muslim violence agains U.S. justified.

Only Americans are dumb enough to believe that other countries won't defend themselves. We expect them to welcome the looting and puppet regimes imposed on them without a response. When they act to defend themselves, we call them terrorists and attack them. Must be that New World Order stuff.

Richard W.

[MEG33]

Go to Ask Jeeves...type in "national debt 1945".It lists a table both as percentage and in dollars.45 was a very bad year!It goes through the years you are searching for.

[Gunslingr3]

Do we pay these countries for their oil?

No, we pay their brutal despots. We send their brutal despots military hardware, and when it suits our politicians we go to war to put their despots back in power. If I'd told you 13 years ago that sending our military, sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States, halfway around the world to put a king back on his throne, would give cause to terrorists to kill thousands of Americans and embroil us further in the mess called the Middle East, would you still be in favor of it? Intervention begets intervention. Washington warned, some people never learn.

[inPhase]

excellent post

[Publius6961]

Only Americans are dumb enough to believe that other countries won't defend themselves.

Waving your arms and making assertions do not create reality.
I have seen you ranting and repeating the same drivel non-stop on this thread without citing a single concrete example of any kind. Is that because you can't? or is it because you feel you don't need to? Because you're the center of the universe? Your mother loves you? Your psychiatrist loves you? What?

[goodnesswins]

You need to put down the pipe, buddy....

[goodnesswins]

We DON'T have a "democracy" in the United States.....remember? Sheesh.

[Publius6961]

Is there a point to that post? If there is I missed it.
Might it be useful to compare your doom and gloom scenario to those oil producing countries where the U.S. has not interfered? Is the resentment and hatred any less?

Or are you claiming that the U.S. has interfered in every possible area from which we get resources, including the North Sea and the Soviet area? Do you feel any need whatsoever to make sense and to be consistent?

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

DIVIDER!!!! LOSER!!!!

Hey, Johnnie-One-Note....Please, for the sake of my sanity, think of at least ONE new thing to say in each post. Unless "divider" and "loser" are the only multi-syllabic words that you know. My Christmas Hangover is in full effect and YOU are making it worse.

[MEG33]

We are trying to correct the Cold War ,when"spheres of influence" were up for sale to the USSR or the US.If you are speaking of Kuwait...you are refusing to see the danger of letting Saddam get Kuwait and then SA oil.If you were prepared to put your car up on blocks ,then you may have a point.Saddam had WMD then...and no problem using them.