Let's see. Just for the record. Common Tator told me a while back, that he doesn't read replies made to him and that means he never responds to anyone. Makes it hard to debate him on the issues. So I'll just post the facts.
All the figures I refer to are located at OMB.gov. Here's a link to Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006, HISTORICAL TABLES.
From Section 3—Federal Government Outlays by Function Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2010
According to OMB:
Clinton's last budget spent 64.1% on Human Resources, aka. socialwelfare & entitlement programs. Bush spent 65.5% in 2002, 65.6% in 2003, 64.8% 2004, 64.0% 2005, estimate 65.3% in 2006, estimate 66.1% 2007, estimate 66.9% in 2008 and estimate 67.2% in 2009 and 2010. With Bush`s track record those estimates will likely be higher.
When Reagan took office HR spending under Jimmah Carter was 53.4% of the budget. Over the next 8 years under Reagan, that spending was significantly reduced. In 1982= 52.1%, 1983=52.7%, 1984= 50.7%, 1985= 49.9%, 1986= 48.6%, 1987= 50.0%, 1988= 50.1%, 1989= 49.7%.
So you see Common Tator, you are wrong. No lies, just the facts.
HR spending went up dramatically under Reagan.. It was that Defense spending went up even faster under Reagan reducing the percenage spent on HR but the HR dollars doubled under REAGAN.
Your figures are like my former wifes'. She excused increased spending on her clothes from 400 to 800 a month because she increased spending on jewelry from 400 to 2,000 a month. That was used to prove that her spending on clothes went from 50 percent of her budget to 16 percent of the budget... But she still doubled her spending on clothes.
One month while reducing her clothing expentitures to 20 percent of her budget she ran up $8,000 on my credit card.