I'm not asking you to ignore anything. Do what you want. The annual budget numbers are more revealing when you look at the yearly budgets for the appropriation process versus the amount of overall funding. However, if you look at spending on HR versus GDP, you'll see similar increases under Bush43 and decreases under Reagan.
In Clinton's last budget, HR spending vs GDP was at 11.9%. Under Bush it went to 12.7 in 2002, followe by 13.1,12.9,13.0,13.0,12.9,12.9 and 12.8 in 2009.
In Carter's last budget, HR spending vs GDP was at 11.9%. Under Reagan it went to 12.0%, 12.4, 11.3, 11.4, 10.9, 10.8, 10.6 and 10.5% in 1989.
As I said, when you look at the size of the federal government versus gross domestic product, what you get is an overall figure that for all intents and purposes clearly shows we have been in a perpetual state of big federal bureaucracy since WWII ended. Just because the GDP gets bigger every year, doesn't mean the government should follow suit. This has been a case of liberal policies that stretch back to the 1960`s and even to the 1930`s. Reagan reduced the welfare entitlement state mentality in the `80s. Gingrich also reduced the welfare entitlement state mentality in the `90s. Both Bush41 and Bush43 have done their part to reverse that trend.
Well, you gave me those numbers as opposed to the GDP numbers for a reason. :) I'm just asking why you think those HR numbers are more meaningful than the "total picture" GDP numbers.
Can you tell me the amount of "HR" spending in Bush's budget that is attributable to protecting the homeland as opposed to wealth re-distribution?
However, if you look at spending on HR versus GDP, you'll see similar increases under Bush43 and decreases under Reagan...
In Clinton's last budget, HR spending vs GDP was at 11.9%. Under Bush it went to 12.7 in 2002, followe by 13.1,12.9,13.0,13.0,12.9,12.9 and 12.8 in 2009.
Seems like under Bush it has been holding steady in a time of economic growth. Not as stellar as Reagan, no, but then again it is hardly a mark, imo, of a flaming liberal.
As I said, when you look at the size of the federal government versus gross domestic product, what you get is an overall figure that for all intents and purposes clearly shows we have been in a perpetual state of big federal bureaucracy since WWII ended. Just because the GDP gets bigger every year, doesn't mean the government should follow suit.
But isn't it the case in relation to the GDP, Bush's government isn't getting bigger?