How Big Is Bush's Big Government?

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | April 18, 2006 | Mark Brandly

[Gordongekko909]

Yeah, but when the alternative is Gore or Kerry...

[PeterFinn]

With Bush all we got was Clinton-lite.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

So really the alternative is Big Government as we have it now...or Big Government under Gore or Kerry. Okay, so your point is that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't???

[Prokopton]

"With Bush all we got was Clinton-lite"

Fiscally, I'm not even sure it's "lite".

[Gordongekko909]

It's Big Government under Bush, or Bigger Government under Gore or Kerry. Damned if we do, damned deeper if we don't.

[Captain Kirk]

Bush has increased government faster than Clinton thus it is likely that Gore and Kerry wouldn't been any worse, at least if history is any guide. Was Kerry, for example, more pro-big govenrment than Clinton? I see little reason to believe he was.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%. Readers of Mises.org may remember that they were warned about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility before he took office. For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%...

[stopem]

So is this "expert" a liberal?

[PubliusToo]

Your facts and figures sound correct, but your assumptions are unproven. How do you know, for example, that government spending has decreased real GDP growth? You may recall that a balanced budget certainly did not end the Great Depression. In fact, the massive federal spending and resulting budget deficits duing WWII most likely ended the depression. Some economists believe that the stimulus of federal spending is required to propel the economy to more consistent positive growth. I understand your point of view, but I just don't see the support for your underlying assumptions.

[PeterFinn]

True, but as I didn't vote for either of them then why am I having to put up with what appears to look like the kinds of foolishness they'd do? I may as well have voted for Gore or Kerry as they would:

1) Screw up the war in Iraq by catering to the media instead of focusing on military objectives.

2) Spend billions and billions of dollars without any control or any end in sight.

3) Whore themselves to China to score some political donations from Americans who sell their birthright to China.

4) Silence Chinese dissidents who protest the wholesale slaughter and imprisonment of people the Communists don't like.

5) Whore themselves to the illegal aliens who illegally vote Democrat.

6) Whore themselves to Mexico to please liberals who hate Bush, hate America, and harbor a genocidal hatred for non-Latino Americans.

At least with Gore or Kerry in the White House I wouldn't feel conflicted for feeling that my President is a traitor.

[PeterFinn]

Sadly, I agree.

[manwiththehands]

Under Kerry or Gore the government would not have grown so fast. The "Republicans" in the house would have acted more like Republicans.

[PeterFinn]

Then why won't they act like Republicans now?

[jpsb]

"In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%"

Seriouly doubt any Rat would be worse.

[Dante3]

The Federal government is way too big, meddling in things that should be left up to the states. Yet were it is needed, such as stopping the invasion of our country, it waves the white flag.

[PubliusToo]

I agree with you. In fact, the Bush Administration has managed an extremely liberal fiscal policy. The Clinton Administration was much more fiscally conservative. During the Clinton Administration, federal revenues were higher and federal spending was lower (as a precentage of GDP) than during the Bush Administration. The net result was that the Bush Administration has turned federal budget surpluses into federal budget deficits.

[RHINO369]

If you were to give Kerry or Gore emperor for life status they'd spend til they were using 100% of our GDP but a liberal with a republican congress wouldn't be able to pass a bill. Bush passed threw a Medicare bill bigger than Gores and the republicans vote for it because they were being loyal. If Gore was elected and he tried to push threw a smaller version of Bushs bill, the entire republican party would scream about a welfare state.

The welfare state will be the end of American democracy, mark my words. Once the majority of people get more money from the the government than the government takes from them we will never be able to vote out the welfare state. Guess what happens then, revolution, a revolution that would either limit the voting franchise or abandon democracy all together. Don't think for one minute the rich and powerful in America will sit idle by when socialists steal their money.

[untrained skeptic]

Fiscally, I'm not even sure it's "lite".

It's really hard to make a "fair" comparison between the two.

Clinton's policies helped lead us into a situation where we had to go to war to address the problems we faced, and in order to fight that war we had to spend insane amounts of money to equip our military, and we've wasted immense amounts of money as a result of not having a competent and capable intelligence community because Clinton gutted it and drove out most of the competent people.

A lot of Clinton's policies have caused a lot of damage in many different ways, and Bush has been left cleaning up the mess.

However, even if none of that were the case, Bush has been horribly irresponsible with our tax dollars.

Comparing them in a fair manner isn't easy, but it's not hard to see that both have been bad.

I'm inclined to think that Clinton was worse, but the perscription drug plan and illegal immigratons enforcement under Bush may result in him costing us even more in the long run.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Libertarian, I believe.