Posted on 07/14/2006 3:37:44 AM PDT by RWR8189
Kingston is the congressman for coastal Georgia, and I am moving to the coast in the next few months, so he will be my congressman. John Linder is my favorite in Georgia, he supports the FAIR TAX. Kingston is better than most. In the Senate, I like Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, he disavows any earmarks.
The Republicans are going to take bumps for their incompetence in 2006 and 2008.
The TOTAL lack of concern for the opinion of the majority of Americans and the UTTER ARROGANCE of the current administration in forwarding an agenda of de-Anglization of America to pander to small pressure groups and rectally oscualte the exploiters of illegal invaders who violate our borders with impugnity is literally without parallel in American history.
The Administration HAS been spending money like a druken sailor. True, we ARE at war and a war-time economy necessitiates higher expenditures. But the REAL FLAVOR of "compassionate conservative" is just starting to sink in with a lot of conservatives - Republican and independent and the taste isn't a good one.
He is better than many, and he's a really nice guy, to boot.
I just think he's gotten a little too concerned with "bringing home the bacon" and not concerned enough about balancing the budget.
You're belly-aching over a few percentage points. Besides, their chart shows considerable growth prior to the start of the Iraq war. Not something I'd expect when Repubs control both houses and the Whitehouse.
The president has said on a number of occasions that the growth of non-war, non-entitlement, discretionary spending is below the inflation rate.
Because they're not allowed to cut the entitlements
the growth of non-war, non-entitlement, discretionary spending is below the inflation rate.
Only in the sense that they're bound by their own laws. They could, of course, change their laws about required SS payments, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that ANY congresscritter from any party or affiliation will vote for that.
So which would you cut:
Funding the war and our troops in the field?
Social Security payments to retirees?
Medicaid/care payments?
Military/Goverment Retirements already being paid for service rendered?
Contracts already legally signed?
You'd be surprised what he consideres "war" (homeland security) spending. I've even seen the farm subsidies get categorized as homeland security spending because it purportedly gives us security if our food supply gets cut off. Anytime you hear "homeland security" spending or "war on terror" spending excluded from a figure, that figure is likely B.S.
Entitlement spending already falls under the non-discretionary category. But here's another chart that separates military from non-miltary discretionary spending. I prefer indpendent conservative/libertarian think tanks (Cato in this case) over what the President says.
The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spendersby Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.
Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.
Ditto
Oh my gosh where do you start? I'd slash the budget of every department (except defense ) in the Federal Government 10%/year for thee next 10 years. I'd eliminate the department of education ( not just transfer programs somewhere else, close it down). Most of agriculture could go. Just off the top of my head.
The chart says that more than half of discretionary spending is on defense.
I understand the necessary increases in defense spending due to the WOT. But you tried to attribute the bulk of the increase on those military expenditures when the chart clearly shows dramatic increases in non-defense as well.
It doesn't matter. The defense is MORE than DOUBLE the non-defense.
The question is this: After taking out ALL the Defense increase and comparing the not-defense increase to the previous non-defense level is the non-defense
% increase ABOVE the inflation rate.
I agree, if the GOP follows Rove over the cliff on immigration a lot of people are just going to stay home this November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.