[LongsforReagan]

"The last four years, total spending has risen 33 percent -- a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. "

That line alone hurt to read.

[thoughtomator]

I've said it before and I will say it again - George W. Bush is no conservative.

[Kokojmudd]

Maybe things will change when we get Republican majorities in both the house and senate. /sarcasm on

[Mr. Mojo]

Bush never claimed to be a small-gov't conservative, but a "compassionate" one.

The two are opposites, apparently.

[softwarecreator]

uh ... could a LOT of that be because Bush has the kahunas to take down the regimes in 2 terrorist nations?

Let's see what Clinton did in 8 years, well, uh ... Monica was a freebie, so I guess he saved the taxpayers a bit on that.

[JerseyHighlander]

It's indisputable: Pres. Bush is completely lacking in even cursory mouthing of economic conservative principles, let alone taking even one baby step toward symbolic action to curb expenditures.

[stylin19a]

As far as Pres. Bush is concerned, veto is a guy on the Sopranos.

[DM1]

Well we have to remember that there was no war on terror if anything we had a passivity on terror. This alone would cause huge financial costs to spring up
that being said Bush and Congress have increased spending in other areas when in fact they should have been cutting expenditures to compensate
dont get me wrong i think BUsh is a decent guy and the Rs are a heck of a lot better than the Turbin Durbin and Deaniacs can bring about but they should get back to attempting a real cost cutting budget

[traviskicks]

I printed out and mailed these charts to the National Republican Committee and told them to take me off their mailing lists and email lists:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400545/posts?page=59#55

I see no reason why anyone should donate to the Republican party. You get a much better bang for your buck and you can be certain it's getting spend on shrinking government with these guys (Club For Growth):
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/why.php

From those charts before it looks like the GOP is doing the opposite of what the people who donate to it want it to do.

[sasafras]

Bush is an eltist and a social and fiscal liberal. I have stopped fighting against the liberal demoncrats and now realize the enemy is within - Bush, McCain et.al. RINOs are the real enemy. They smile while the stab you in the back.

[moog]

"The last four years, total spending has risen 33 percent -- a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. "
That line alone hurt to read.

We are fighting a war too so I didn't expect things to shrink.

[XEHRpa]

"The last four years, total spending has risen 33 percent -- a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. "

While I am likewise disappointed at the lack of fiscal discipline, let us not understand why Clinton could succeed as a fiscal conservative: because he balanced the budget on the backs of the Defense programs. Those cuts were supported by the governing majority consisting of the RATs and the fiscally conservative Republicans.

I also note (seeing your screen name) that Reagan, while a fiscal conservative at heart, was unable to bring into effect that conservatism, because the rats stymied cuts on domestic programs and defense needed to be bolstered to beat the commies.

[kabar]

A couple of things. Bush has had to deal with a war on terrorism, which involves huge, unanticipated expenditures. Second, the military was run down and needed to be built up. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, Clinton had the benefit of the peace dividend. Finally, Bush inherited a recession. Bush responded by providing income tax reductions, which decreased tax revenue in the short term. Clinton had for the most part, a GOP congress, which could limit his spending. Bush has not had such opposition.

The Clinton Years (FY1994-FY2001)

The Clinton administration ran deficits in each of its first four years and surpluses in each of the last four years. The largest deficit was $213 billion in FY1994 and the largest surplus was $219 billion in FY2000. The Clinton years paid down a net $14.2 billion of national debt and averaged a surplus of $1.78 billion.

During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.

The economy grew in each of the eight Clinton years by the following percentages, 4.0%, 2.7%, 3.6%, 4.4%, 4.2%, 4.9%, 3.8% and 0.3%, respectively. The average for those years is 3.5% GDP growth.

During the Clinton years the unemployment rate was 6.1%, 5.6%, 5.4%, 4.9%, 4.5%, 4.2%, 4.0% and 4.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an unemployment rate of 4.9%.

During the Clinton years, the inflation rate was 2.6%, 2.8%, 3.0%, 2.3%, 1.6%, 3.2%, 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 2.7%.

During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%.

During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

That said, Bush has been spending too much on education and prescription drugs, among other things.