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

[Gunslingr3]

Is there a point to that post? If there is I missed it.

Yes, namely that what we pay for oil in the Middle East doesn't go to the 'people' of the Middle East. It goes to their dictators, who we call our 'friends'. They use that money to buy military hardware and maintain their power. Americans shouldn't expect thanks from their oppressed populace for this.

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?

Doom and gloom? It's just the reality. Do you think the average Saudi is satisfied with his government, the King we protect and provide aid to? Do you think our actions endear us to them, or their masters? The bastard leaders are ok, so long as they're 'our' bastard. That tends to backfire when the people finally overthrow their repressive governments in some form or fashion. Whether it's in Iran, or in Cuba.

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?

Strawman and treated as such.

[Hotdog]

I will!...don't spend...then clean up buildings that are attacked...and bury the dead...spend and avoid it. You must be either a French contractor or a greedy funeral directer...

[MEG33]

LOL!

[Gunslingr3]

.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.

The economic argument to justify intervention doesn't wash. If you'd like to, we can get into the specifics, but I've studied it, and it doesn't hold water.

Saddam had WMD then...and no problem using them.

But he didn't? Why was that? Because we threatened him with same. MAD worked on Stalin, it worked on Hussien.

[Hotdog]

sorry about the spelling...but nothing else

[vto]

Hee hee, naw, mine was in work pants!

Reagan years.

[EGPWS]

The power of the voter temporarily ends once the official is elected.

OK, so why vote?

After all, your statement renders the voting process useless.

Again, I call out for a better system. I, personally, haven't found a better one.

[yoe]

Puleeze, we need 87 billion to rebuild the damage we have done and keep our troops there for another year.

Yep! And due to near surgical strikes, precious damage was done. At this point in time, Iraq is far better off than before the war with nearly all citizens in Baghdad receiving water in their homes; flush toilets; electricity, schools and hospitals operating and more being opened.

There are some parts of the country where these things never existed nor will anytime soon. But at least the people are free of a tyrant and his sons so they can go about their lives without the fear of reprisals from the least little bump in the road. Like almost all mid-east countries, the air is rank with human and animal refuse, the people are NOT in even the 20th century and they will most likely stay that way in rural areas, it is their culture and in our western view, extremely backwards, but not in theirs. The system of tribes, feudal lordships if you will, work well for these people in the small towns and villages, as a form of government. Most have rules, i.e. law and order.

Our purpose now is to see that Iraq’s cities have a modern infrastructure and stable democratic government to enable them to be self sufficient.

There are those who fear this success and like FR’s visitors on this thread who rail against Paul Bremer, the Coalition forces and President Bush for not instantly putting things right; Childish nano-sound-bite mentality with apparently no interest in history, truth or what is really happening in Iraq. Parroting the ‘party line’, sounding fairly hostile about their country while American men and women are in harms way; what on earth gives some on this thread the right to do so. How many of you would fight for your countrymen and country as these courageous people are doing. You should get your taxes back for education – you haven’t learned anything.

[arete]

You can't refute a single thing that I've said.

Richard W.

[Glenn]

I'm willing to bet we'll see substantial spending cuts next year after Bush wins a landslide.

I'll take that bet. What are you willing to lose?

[FreeReign]

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.

Allow me to clarify the CBO numbers for you -- your above conclusion is based on a misconception of the CBO numbers. The CBO numbers for "non-defense" discretionary spending actually INCLUDE discretionary non-DOD defense spending -- Homeland security spending -- as part of the so called "non-defense" discretionary spending. So if you want to talk about real non-defense discretionary spending since most here including myself want a strong defense, then you need to remove the cost of Homeland "non-defense" discretionary from the total cost of "non-defense" discretionary when you are comparing 1982 with 2002.

So if total non-DOD discretionary expenditures in the Bush 2002 budget is 350 billion and if the total Homeland defense expenditures in the Bush 2002 discretionary budget is 19 billion, then the total Bush 2002 discretionary budget less DOD and Homeland defense is really 3.3% of GDP. Compare that to Reagans 3.9% of GDP in 1982.

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.

I've never said anywhere that I see a trend based on one year. My point was that there are too few years -- one -- to extrapolate a trend of "Bush leads country on spending spree", which was the title of this article. Apparently you agree.

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.

Discretionary spending means exactly that. It is the president's portion of the budget that is at his sole discretion. Compositions of the two legislative chambers mean little besides voting on the full budget.

Bush's 2002 discretionary budget minus DOD and Homeland security is 3.3% of GDP. Reagans, in 1982 was 3.9%. Freedom is truth!

[FreeReign]

I can't seem to locate the figures stating the GDP for those years on that link. Am I missing something?

My mistake. I thought you meant spending relative to GDP figures. The sole GDP figures are not there.

[sinkspur]

When you get a president that is so far out of control in taking the country to war based on fabrications and lies, then it is time for him to go.

Come Nov. 4, you will not be surprised to learn that the country disagrees with you about the war in Iraq.

We got a two-fer: Libya's turning away from its mayhem-making as well.

Congratulations: you and the nutty Deaniacs are on the same side.

[Arpege92]

"If it wasn't for all the terrorist hype and the war and the fear mongering."

Wait a minute here. Terrorist hype wasn't created by President Bush....9/11 was. We are still being threatened daily and don't forget that the coalition countries are being threatened as well. So the hype comes from that and not something Bush made up.

[pctech]

Throw your vote away on Dean or Hillary then and spare us your drivel. Bush's domestic policies are questionable but he's DAMN sure better than the alternatives

I will not thrown away my vote on the likes of anyone from the Democratic party, but if there was a third candidate that was more along the lines of a Ronald Reagan than GWB that could beat either him or Dean/Clinton, I would vote for him. As much as I've supported and stood up for this president, some of his policies are so "democratic like" in nature it really scares me. Of course, he's just following his father's lead and helping to bring on the "one world government" that GHB started.

[inPhase]

I agree with you almost word for word, repost..

" I will not thrown away my vote on the likes of anyone from the Democratic party, but if there was a third candidate that was more along the lines of a Ronald Reagan than GWB that could beat either him or Dean/Clinton, I would vote for him. As much as I've supported and stood up for this president, some of his policies are so "democratic like" in nature it really scares me. Of course, he's just following his father's lead and helping to bring on the "one world government" that GHB started."

[Sabertooth]

So if total non-DOD discretionary expenditures in the Bush 2002 budget is 350 billion and if the total Homeland defense expenditures in the Bush 2002 discretionary budget is 19 billion, then the total Bush 2002 discretionary budget less DOD and Homeland defense is really 3.3% of GDP. Compare that to Reagans 3.9% of GDP in 1982.

So, even if you take your revised numbers, Reagan showed a decrease from President Carter's 4.5% in 1981, while President Bush showed an increase from President Clinton's 3.2% in 2001.

President Reagan never surpassed his Democrat predecessor in discretionary non-defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, while President Bush did it on his first try.

Right?

Discretionary spending means exactly that. It is the president's portion of the budget that is at his sole discretion. Compositions of the two legislative chambers mean little besides voting on the full budget.

Bush's 2002 discretionary budget minus DOD and Homeland security is 3.3% of GDP. Reagans, in 1982 was 3.9%. Freedom is truth!

So again, even taking everything here at face value, then President Reagan used his discretion to consistently reduce this spending from Carter-era levels, while President Bush used his discretion to increase spending from the Clinton's final year, as a percentage of GDP.

Right?

[arete]

"I too support Afghan and Iraqi 'democracy'"

Richard W.

[inPhase]

This rendering the voting process useless as you put it is really disturbing.

Are there so few conservatives? fiscal conservatives from which all else follows...

[N8VTXNinWV]

get a load of this crap!