Skip to comments.Fed Spending Up 40 Percent Under Bush
Posted on 11/17/2006 1:50:24 PM PST by Reagan is King
Federal spending in fiscal year 2006 increased by a whopping 9 percent the largest rise since 1990 and has risen more than 40 percent since President Bush took office.
The most recent rise far outpaces inflation the Consumer Price Index is up only 1.3 percent in the past 12 months.
"The greatest scandal in Washington, D.C., is runaway federal spending, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said after the midterm elections.
In recent years, he points out, the GOP majority "voted to expand the federal governments role in education, [added new] entitlements, and pursued spending policies that created deficits and national debt.
The Republicans defeat in the elections shows that the outgoing GOP Congress attempts "to buy our votes failed, according to Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Excellent and correct point...we're fighting a war, all of that expense is on the budget.
Also, where's the reportage about the daffycit being cut in half over the past two years because of the HUGE increase in tax revenues brought about by the tax reduction act?
Works everytime it's tried.
Can you drink that koolaid without slurping please?
Back out all Anti Terrorist funds shelled out as a result of 9-11, including Iraq. Now add Katrina, what' the revised total?
"Can you drink that koolaid without slurping please?"
Buddy, if you think there is a such thing as "small government", you are the one drinking the Kool-aid. Please, show me "small governemnt" somewhere in this world.
Now if you would like to show me where I am wrong, please do.
No, Reagan cut taxes, but he had a dem congress which drastically raised spending.
Bush but taxes, but had a republican congress that drastically raised spending.
But Bush only vetoed one bill. Stem cell funding, of all things.
He could have vetoed the budgets, and insisted that there was no "bridge to nowhere" or other earmarks. But he did not. He passed the budgets.
Except for stem cells.
What an ass.
Some people do have a short memory or is it selective memory.
Regan had a dem congress to contend with so he had a scapegoat. Although President Bush did lobby for some lower cuts a veto might have straightened out the whole lot.
I for one did see some Republicans on the floor recanting to the Dems who cried about the perception of cuts in entitlements. They tried to explain that a cut from an increase is not a loss. They lost that argument. As a matter of fact, they lost a lot of arguments that way.
If you ever elect a Libertarian to any election that is contested, please let us know.
Could it be because we are in a war time economy? Why does everyone forget that.
I do not bash the President. Yet when policy decisions are contrary to conservative opinion, it is important to have constructive discussion. Maybe you saw the Harriet Myers, DPW, and Immigration threads. Those degenerated into chaos, and many FRiends left or were banned. The President has done a superb job with tax cuts, and international security, except with Mexico and central/south America. Somehow Social Security reform fell to the wayside. The failure of Republican advisor's to capitalize on an impressive job and economic rebound harmed the party. Conservatism was redefined by Democrats. It is a disgrace.
You mean under Ronald Reagan, the Conservatives' conservative, the Gov't grew?
No. That's absolutely false. Federal spending on poverty programs in 1991 dollars increased from $140 billion in 1982 to $180 billion in 1991, an annual growth rate of 3 percent. In other words, the welfare state grew under Reagan-and the liberals are still complaining!
well if Bush baby finds his veto pen, the Dems won't be able to raise the spending.....but alas, Bush is a bigger spender then Clinton.....go figure....and why I'm pissed at the Pubs......
Yes it has, but look at it as a % of the total...I'm NOT HAPPY either with the increase in discretional spending, it's just $$$ to the black hole of waste and corruption.
We must, however, look at the entire context and not just one side.
"Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are "on a path to bankrupt our country, said Feulner. Medicare spending alone is projected to rise $112 billion over the next two years to nearly half a trillion dollars."
Reread my response please. I said it would still be high because Bush hadn't used his veto pen. But, it wouldn't be nearly the monster it is without the war and Katrina. If you have a problem with that statement, tough. I am not an apologist for big spending. I'm just making a statement.
You apparently are happy with Reagan's terrible performance with Federal Spending. But Reagan was a far greater spender than Bush. And Reagan did not have a war on Terror to pay for. He had the cold war.... and that meant no troops were in combat. P>You should change your name to Reagan should be de-throned.
Reagan raised taxes... and a bunch! He was still one of our Greatest Presidents!
"Vote Constitution Party"
ELECT dims and hildebeast!