'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter

The Cato Institute ^ | July 31, 2003 | Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

[dr_who_2]

Check out Cato's position papers on steel tariffs.

[KantianBurke]

Willie Green posting an essay from the "free trading devils" at Cato? Wow! :>

[Sursum Corda]

Actually, it is rather simple.

9/11.

Freedom isn't free, it requires both money and blood.

Sursum Corda

[dufekin]

Hey Congress...let's put your obese spending on a starvation diet:

ZERO PORK THIS ENTIRE YEAR!

And cut spending (except as necessary to prosecute this war). And no, that borehole or whatever it was at the South Pole was NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, necessary to our victory in Iraq, nor will it be in the future.

[Dog Gone]

Bush spends more than Grover Cleveland. Film at 10.

[xrp]

You're right it is rather simple:

Bush is a liberal.

[Howlin]

YOu don't think he'd miss a chance to bash Bush, do you? :-)

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I agree!

Had Clinton spent where it was necessary, there might not have been a Sept 11th attacks. But none of that matters if that's not the agenda. The ends justifies the means.

The economy rose while Clinton was in Office IN SPITE OF, not BECAUSE OF Clinton. You have a tech stock surge (25 stocks pushed the NASDAQ during his tenure) like what happened, and you'll have a decent economy even under Carter.

I'll take cautious, wise spending from Pres. Bush over what Clinton did, any day. And there is more to it than what Cato folks are saying here. Ahhh, but why waste a good Bush-trashing thread?!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Life . . . is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. --Shak

[Sursum Corda]

I couldn't disagree more. Conservatism is defined by more than economic issues.
Worst of luck electing your favorite Democrat in 2004.;-)

Sursum Corda

[Sursum Corda]

You get it. Unfortunately, so many others do not.

Sursum Corda

[GSWarrior]

Here come....

[xrp]

Oh, I agree, but when the economic and spending issues far outweigh everything else, you have *drum roll* a liberal.

[xrp]

uhm...k

[RedBloodedAmerican]

It's obvious the spending is increased, but where was it not necessary?

[Sursum Corda]

You wrote:

Oh, I agree, but when the economic and spending issues far outweigh everything else, you have *drum roll* a liberal.


14 posted on 07/31/2003 5:51 PM PDT by xrp

Everything else? Do you include innocent human life?

Sursum Corda

[xrp]

No, do you?

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Most of this is called "triangulation" where you coopt the enemies agenda to corral their voters. It is also known as "taxpayer stri-angulation". I am sure it is nothing to be concerned about unless of course you pay taxes, which I would not recommend.

[F16Fighter]

Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Can anybody justify the existance of either of these rather useless and bloated bureaucracies? Nevermind the respective 65 and 70 percent increases for their budgets...