Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pfony1
Total federal spending

No. You are not correct. $2.3 trillion is the federal budget for 2004. Americans for tax reform claims the spending figure for all government is $3.63 trillion.

Americans for tax reform's numbers

And nothing you have cited explains why a "conservative" president should get a break for growing government faster than Clinton. Besides, of course, that he is a Republican, and that excuses a lot of government excess with some of you around here.
51 posted on 08/25/2005 7:49:18 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: mysterio

If you will surf over to "www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm" you will see in Table 1B the figures I was working with.

These figures were issued 8/23/2005 -- which suggests they are more accurate than the figures you used, which preceded the BEA fugures by several months. But I think there is no need for us to debate whether the CBO or the BEA is "more accurate", because YOUR second link (to About.com) makes my point very well.

We should agree that Table 6 at your link shows that "federal government spending" (however that is defined by the CBO) was 19.8% of GDP in 2004.

That table also shows that the LOWEST percentage of GDP consumed by "federal government spending" during the Reagan presidency was 21.2%.

This confirms my view that your hyper-concern about excessive government spending during the Bush presidency lacks perspective.

Although I agree that are far too many wasteful government projects being funded and I think its a great shame that the "line-item-veto" was disallowed, I also think that, given that GWB is spending comparatively LESS than President Reagan, "panic" is not the proper emotion for us Republicans to be feeling now.


55 posted on 08/25/2005 9:25:49 AM PDT by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: mysterio

If you will surf over to "www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm" you will see in Table 1B the figures I was working with.

These figures were issued 8/23/2005 -- which suggests they are more accurate than the figures you used, which preceded the BEA fugures by several months. But I think there is no need for us to debate whether the CBO or the BEA is "more accurate", because YOUR second link (to About.com) makes my point very well.

We should agree that Table 6 at your link shows that "federal government spending" (however that is defined by the CBO) was 19.8% of GDP in 2004.

That table also shows that the LOWEST percentage of GDP consumed by "federal government spending" during the Reagan presidency was 21.2%.

This confirms my view that your hyper-concern about excessive government spending during the Bush presidency lacks perspective.

Although I agree that are far too many wasteful government projects being funded and I think its a great shame that the "line-item-veto" was disallowed, I also think that, given that GWB is spending comparatively LESS than President Reagan, "panic" is not the proper emotion for us Republicans to be feeling now.


56 posted on 08/25/2005 9:26:13 AM PDT by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson