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

[inPhase]

OK I have an example. Wolfowitz said and was quoted repeatly that we would be met with rose petals by Iraq. He said many other things to this extent and he holds for a short while more a very important position in Iraq war strategy and preparedness. Wolf is an American (maybe dual?) and he represents our war policy.

response? unemotional please.

[alrea]

Constitution Party

great name there; maybe the republican or democratic party can just get new leaders that believe in the constitution more than pork.

[alrea]

insure the election of Howard Dean

very good point. grassroots exits from either left or right just allows the seesaw to fall on the other side.

[FreeReign]

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?

Correct. Two important points however to add full context;

Discretionary budgets meaning that they are the full discretion of the president start from cost $0 in any given year. There is no mandatory carryover and they don't start from the discretionary dollar figure of the last president. So the 3.3% of GDP for year 2002 figure does mean something compared to the 1982 3.9% of GDP figure. It's a lower figure regardless and the direction of the previous president's budget is irrelevant.

Now, comparing the 3.3% of GDP figure with the 3.2% of GDP 2001 Clinton figure, please note that the GDP crash that occurred the year Clinton left office -- 2001.

[Defender2]

If the United States were turned into a smoking hole, would you ALL be still crying over money!!!! It's WARTIME people and unless you know something different, history shows that spending tends to go up in WarTime!!!! You ALL can cry over spent money, I just want to defeat Our Beloved United States enemies, period!!!! And I don't care how much it costs either!!!! So I will continue to fight our enemies while you all continue to cry over money!!!!

[Capitalism2003]

This is not debatable. Bush and the GOP congress has left all true conservatives behind. Federal NON DEFENSE spending up 37% in three years. Clinton could only dream of this achievement.

[EGPWS]

Are there so few conservatives?

Apparently so, however with the proper leadership and agenda, 40 years of care less and fancy free thinking,(less the Reagan years) the shock of reality will put most minds in political motion.

Although it takes time, to force anything on the public to politically expedite such a motion, it would be detrimental to the final outcome sought to be achieved.

[FreeReign]

[Reformated for correct attribution.]

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?

Correct. Two important points however to add full context;

Discretionary budgets meaning that they are the full discretion of the president start from cost $0 in any given year. There is no mandatory carryover and they don't start from the discretionary dollar figure of the last president. So the 3.3% of GDP for year 2002 figure does mean something compared to the 1982 3.9% of GDP figure. It's a lower figure regardless and the direction of the previous president's budget is irrelevant.

Now, comparing the 3.3% of GDP figure with the 3.2% of GDP 2001 Clinton figure, please note that the GDP crash that occurred the year Clinton left office -- 2001.

[fourhorsemen]

What are you willing to lose?

The Dean campaign? :-)

[fourhorsemen]

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.

It sounds like something I'd expect to hear from Pat Buchanan, lunacy!

[meenie]

Actually tearing a country up improves it by the time it is rebuilt. Surgical strikes have enabled the country to be completely rebuilt for the 20 billion dollars allocated for that purpose. As soon as the pipelines are repaired, we will reap the benefits of the oil production. If Jim Baker can get the debts forgiven all will be wonderful and a new boom of prosperity and freedom will begin in Iraq.

It is regrettable that we waited so long to start improving the rest of the world. With all the friends we have made in the mideast, the only downside will be when they decide the tearing down, rebuilding process is so successful that they wish to return the favor. Perhaps that is what Ridge was thinking when he grabbed his crayolas and instituted Code Orange.

[Burkeman1]

While much of the criticism of Bush is valid on foreign policy and domestic policy from a conservative point of view- reality is that no one is ever going to get everything or even a majority of what they want from any politician. Idealistic 18 years olds may vote for ideological purity but adults don't vote that way. I am one of the biggest critics of the Bush administration on this board from everything to the war in Iraq to his less than impressive support of conservative judicial nominees. But I am not about to give up the Federal government to a straighforward socialist who will appoint far left wing judges to the USSC. And I would rather have a foreign policy I disagree with run by people who at least are genrally moral.

Granted, if the GOP loses the Presidency- there will be little reason to vote for them in the future.

[Publius6961]

Yes, namely that what we pay for oil in the Middle East doesn't go to the 'people' of the Middle East.

Since you seem incapable of even comprehending the simple concept of "straw man", I tend to want to ignore any further dialog. I hate battle of wits with the unarmed and the ignorant... But what the heck. One last try.

Your response is the socialist one-note mantra. Take your time and answer just one question: Has there ever been, since oil was discovered outside the United States, any country whatsoever where what "we pay" has gone to the 'people'? Ever? Any? What kind of a puerile stuck-record inanity is that?

Give it a rest. And have a nice day.

[Publius6961]

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

I will give it a shot if you ever actually say something that is not merely the product of a feverish or a drugged mind.
Good luck.

[meenie]

Everybody has to make their own decision on how they handle the socialist agenda. There is one problem I have with the concern for security in the years ahead. The consensus seems to be that a strong defense does not rely on a strong economy to support that strong security. I fail to see how there is a disconnect between the two. We have to have the ability to support our military, if not, we can go to the Soviet model where the country goes down the creek and the military collapses. Guns and butter did not work in the Lyndon Johnson era and it will not work in this era.

[Publius6961]

response? unemotional please.

As unemotionally as I can, here is my answer:

If I could understand your question, I would happily comment. Could you repeat it in English, please?

[Burkeman1]

We sing the same song. Modern Empires are net drains on the home country of the empire and eventually drain it dry. The Soviet Empire didn't last nearly as long as they would have if their economy wasn't a crazy utopian pipe dream. We can play numbers games for a least a few decades and use our "superpower" status to forestall the inevitable but eventually all debts are called in.

But the immediate question is who is to run this country for the next four years?: Dean or Bush? Will the election of Dean have any significant impact on our foreign policy? Not one bit! And if history is any indicator- Democrats always seem to expand such little wars as we have now and make them even worse.

Vote Bush- hope he purges the neocons among his advisors- and hope he appoints sound jurists to the bench. A lot to hope for yes. But there is no hope if Dean is elected.

[Mr. Mojo]

George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no.

The Prez has yet to veto a bill. ZERO. Reagan had already vetoed 20 bills by this time in his first term. "Compassionate conservativism" is a nice feel-good catch-phrase, but it's neither compassionate nor conservative.

[Gunslingr3]

Take your time and answer just one question: Has there ever been, since oil was discovered outside the United States, any country whatsoever where what "we pay" has gone to the 'people'? Ever? Any? What kind of a puerile stuck-record inanity is that?

I'll help you follow the posts that led us to this point, since the very nature of your question exposes you missed it. In post #154 raptor29 asked, "Do we pay these countries for their oil?" I clarified in post #173 "No, we pay their brutal despots."

Perhaps it is news to you, but OBL and Co. recruit by saying that the U.S. government props up repressive despots like the Saudi govt. to manipulate the price of oil to our advantage (and thereby the disadvantage of the people who live on top of those resources). He wasn't making this argument before we put troops in Saudi Arabia. He wasn't attacking Americans then. It's very convenient to forget that internvention begets intervention. We'll see in 10 years what the latest round will reap. I'll guarantee you, and no one you know, foresaw 3,000 dead Americans and a smoking hole in NY city as the repercussion for sending U.S. soldiers, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, halfway around the world to defend a King.