Posted on 01/03/2015 12:30:35 PM PST by South40
““Bush’s behavior was no different than any free-spending Democrat.”
...to the tune of one-trillion-dollar-plus non-budgets for six years?
Just asking.”
When Bush took office the cumulative national debt incurred since the founding (over 200 years) was $5.8 trillion. When he left office it was $10.6 trillion. During his 8 years he added almost as much debt as every President before him. Plus, he did not use either his veto pen or his bully pulpit to reign in federal discretionary spending. If that isn’t free spending, I don’t know what is.
“If that isn’t free spending, I don’t know what is.”
If one deducts the cost of operations agains terrorists, with the consent of Congress, and the free-spending habits of Democrats from 2006 to 2010, then what?
Just asking.
“If one deducts the cost of operations agains terrorists, with the consent of Congress, and the free-spending habits of Democrats from 2006 to 2010, then what?”
The cumulative deficit increased during the Bush years by about $4.7 trillion. The incremental cost of the war on terror was about $1 trillion. In addition, Bush requested $700 billion in October 2008, to fund the TARP program in response to the financial crisis. This bill, requested by President Bush, was passed by the Pelosi/Reid Congress and dramatically impacted 2009 spending. Arguably it was wasted money, essentially a transfer from the treasury to unions, General Motors, state governments, and Wall Street but it was requested by Bush and not forced on him by the Democrats in Congress.
The Democrats controlled Congress the last two years of the Bush presidency. During those two years the total deficit was roughly $600 billion. All of it cannot be attributed to Pelosi and Reid because Bush did not submit a balanced budget to Congress for those years. Even if you give Pelosi and Reid 100% responsibility for 1/3 of the deficit in those two years, their contribution was only 4% of the total debt accumulated during the Bush years.
Regardless of what Congress passed, look at the rate of spending increase under Bush based on the budget requests he submitted to Congress. The growth in spending, requested by the president, does not suggest a fiscally responsible administration. Total increase in the president’s requested budget during the Bush years = $1.1 trillion. Based on what he asked for, not what Congress passed, he increased federal spending by 50% during his time in office. See below:
2009 $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
Finally, you can’t excuse deficit spending for the war on terror or any other war. Eventually wars must be paid for and since Korea we’ve been borrowing money for wars and not paying it back. If a nation has a need to go to war it is a time for sacrifice. This means higher taxes and less spending for non-defense budget items. Bush had no plan to fund the war on terror other than borrowing the money and leaving it up to his successors how to pay the money back. Instead of raising taxes, or reducing other spending, to fund what he considered to be necessary wars, he lowered taxes, dramatically increased federal spending on education, and added a new entitlement program (medicare prescription drugs).
I see no evidence George W. Bush behaved in a fiscally responsible manner. I recall no speeches from his bully pulpit calling for sacrifice to fund the war on terror through lower domestic spending or higher taxes. He didn’t use his veto pen to stop $200 million bridges to nowhere and other wasteful spending. He engaged in no budget fights with Pelosi and Reid during his last two years when they controlled Congress. Obama and Clinton both fought Republicans in Congress over budget issues. Bush apparently didn’t have the stomach for a major fight with Congress over spending.
“I see no evidence George Bush behaved in a fiscally responsible manner.”
One would bet there’s lots of evidence or war crimes.
IMHO
Barack H. Obama is the messiah, is he not?
Just asking.
IMHO
I’ll list her quaifications, she is over 35 years old and is, as far as I know, a natural born citizen of this country and has lived in this country for more than 14 years. Other than that I cannot think of anything to qualify her for the office.
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.