[Reagan Man]

I wouldn't get too carried away with the percentages of government spending versus GDP. That is mostly used by people who run around making excuses for big government Republicans. The vast majority of the figures posted at OMB.gov are in relative terms to the annual US federal budget. If you analyze the OMB budget numbers, in relation to percentages of spending, you'll see the following.

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 after all is said and done.

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%.

As you can see, spending on welfare and entitlements went down significantly under Reagan from what they were in the Carter years. Under Bush43, those numbers have gone up and its easy to see why. The Medicare PDP, doubling the federal Education budget and signing off on huge spending boondoggles like the transportation bill, farm bill and engergy bill have made Bush43, in historical terms, the largest spender to ever sit in the Oval Office. Even bigger then Bill Clinton. The facts don't lie.

[Recovering_Democrat]

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 after all is said and done.

Why should I ignore the percentage of GDP numbers yet embrace the ones you've presented? And what percentage of the Bush "HR" numbers are Homeland Security related?