[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?

[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.

[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.