Posted on 02/05/2006 8:29:44 PM PST by ncountylee
For clarification - are you calling me fiscally challenged?
That statement on no one in DC voting for that big a cut is simply realism. The morons can't seem to pass more "cuts" than just a few billion over 5 years, so why should we believe they'll cut 8% when they haven't been able to limit the rate of increase to under 6% yet? Its not that they shouldn't - its just acknowledging that they won't.
And I'm sure everyone would like to keep all the Bush43 cuts, but without massive spending cuts now (which none of the buffoons will support), we're getting to the point where we'll have to give back a small part just to get back to a balance in a reasonable timeframe.
And I hate to have to disagree, but cutting further now without matching spending cuts that don't rely on overly optimistic assumptions (ie, you have to implement pay-go) is incredibly reckless, as it will drive the already insanely growing deficit and the accompanying interest rates. Implement pay-go, and I'm all for looking at appropriate tax cuts.....
I suppose you mean, to make Bush43 look bad and Reagan look good. Right? Wrong! I showed you that either way, HR spending went down under Reagan and went up under Bush43. One shows the increase relative to the budget, while the other shows it relative to GDP. IMO, the budget comparisons are more relevent when you consider each annual federal budget on a stand alone basis and compare spending approachs for each budget, on a strict percentage basis. Again, the overall size of the federal bureaucracy should send shivers down the backs of all good fiscal conservatives.
No matter how you look at the current state of affairs, over the last five years, when it comes to spending Bush43 and his cohorts in the GOP Congress have spent the taxpayers money at an alarming rate. When you consider the increased spending for a trillion dollar PDP, doubling the eduaction department budget and signing off on pork barrel legislation like the transportation bill, farm bill and energy bill, I don't see how any conservative could reach any conclusion but the obvious one. On the spending and expanding government, Bush43 and the GOP Congress have behaved like liberals, expanding the federal government like no one before them.
>>>>But isn't it the case in relation to the GDP, Bush's government isn't getting bigger?
My point was, since the end of WWII, the federal govt has gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. Just because the GDP gets bigger every year, doesn't mean the government should follow suit. Btw, Bush43`s "government" has gotten bigger, up from 19.5% in 2001 to 20.3% in 2005 and at the same time with a drop off in spending for national defense.
"The GOP had tremendous success in the 1990`s, holding Clinton in check on spending."
That's because Clinton never fought a war on terrorism.
Not at all. Don't be so touchy. I said "To our fiscally challenged liberal and centrist Republican friends..." The word "our" applies, to you and me. LOL
>>>>That statement on no one in DC voting for that big a cut is simply realism.
I can't buy into that general mentality. Lets not offer up excuses. Instead, lets have real solutions. The 8% cut was just a throw away expression. However, the freeze I mentioned was not. I'm dead serious. This current sad state of affairs has only existed since Gingrich left and Bush43 arrived. If the GOP Congress were as fiscally responsible with Bush43 as they were with Clinton, we wouldn't have a situation whereby runnaway spending is normal policy.
There is nothing insane about pushing for more tax cuts and matching those tax cuts with reasonable spending reductions or even spending freezes. What's been insane, is this GOP President and this GOP Congress spending money we don't have on programs we don't need. Advancing more and more waste, fraud and abuse.
Sorry. Not all the new spending which Bush43 and the GOP Congress has pushed through in the last five years is attributed to the WOT. The trillion dollar Medicare PDP is social engineering at its best. Bush doubling the Education budget and signing off on three waste filled legislative bills, transportation, farm and energy, have given us more spending and more government. The new budget is $2.7 trillion. Add it up. We can do a lot better.
Ditto.
Ok... Sorry - I get attacked too many times for criticizing the deficit... :)
I'd LOVE to see an 8% cut, but I agree a dead freeze would be a great start, and agree pushing more tax cuts with appropriate spending cuts would be a good thing. The realist side of me just acknowledges the parties right now are controlled by "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend even more" factions. Pathetic.
Where's Andrew Jackson when you need him?
This AP story was in the paper yesterday. Is there any real "cut", or just a decrease in the growth of spending? I wish there was some way to make these damn reporters tell the truth.
As I recall, what is called "cuts" by the politicians and the MSM are usually reductions in the rate of growth.
"...blind Bushbots." - ???
How open-sighted of you.
I support Bush first for his stance on terrorism. You think Gore or Kerry would've been better? I'm not happy with a lot of his domestic policies and actions, but I'd rather have him running things domestically than Gore or Kerry, also. Until a third party emerges that can beat the Democrats, I have to vote for the Republican. Even with their timidness in Congress, the GOP is better -IMHO- than the Demonrats on almost everything. +Dems spend even more!
Is it 'blind' to want to keep this country from being destroyed by the vermin on the left?
What we have today is a GOP President and a GOP Congress that governs as though they're more beholden to the WashDC-BeltWay status quo mentality, then they are to the Party's conservative base. That means, cut taxes to secure your conservative base and spend lots of money expanding the bureaucracy just like Democrats, so you can garner the moderate-centrist contingent of voters, aka."independents".
The answer to your question is simple. Support and advocate a more conservative governing agenda, by electing more conservatives to public office. Reagan won in two historical landslides and America was better off for his leadership. Newt&Company won in a huge historical landslide and governed for the next five years like they knew what they were doing.
Today's GOP controlled federal government, isn't serious about conservative spending reforms, or conservative policies that limit growth, reduce bureaucracy and freeze spending in its tracks.
I called them Clinton budgets for ease of understanding the time frame. Whether Congress or the President deserves blame/credit didn't enter into my statement.
The same economic steps Reagan took in the 1980`s. It's called, fiscal conservatism.
You mean those Reagan budgets which exploded spending? Or are Reagan's (what you call) fiscal conservative budgets the responsibility of the Congress?
I don't think government spending versus gross domestic product in real economic terms has that much relevent meaning.
Ain't that nifty? I can't think of a better benchmark to put spending into perspective. I think you're on thin ice with this reply.
Spoken like a good liberal Republican.
I'm a practical conservative Republican, but instead of making this about me, let's try to stay on the topic of Dubya, OK?
That is a terrible analogy.
It's not an analogy, it's an indisputable fact. No other President has fought a major conflict without raising taxes since before the Civil War.
You can't have it both ways.
That's really funny. You are a walking contradiction. You say Reagan budgets are the Congresses fault. The credit for budgets Clinton signed goes to the Congress, but Dubya's budgets are Dubya's fault.
Reagan's 21% GDP budgets are "fiscal conservative", but Dubya's 19% & 20% GDP budgets are "liberal fiscal policy."
I don't see Bush reversing his five years of liberal spending and expanding the federal bureaucracy.
Well then it appears you didn't bother reading the article at the top of this thread.
I rest my case.
Well, then I win again.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Exploded? During Reagan's two terms in office, eight years, the annual federal budget went up a total of 40%. Under Bush43, the budget has gone up 33% in four full years, plus a 2006 budget proposal just released totalling almost $2.8-trillion.
>>>>Ain't that nifty? I can't think of a better benchmark to put spending into perspective. I think you're on thin ice with this reply.
As a good fiscal conservative who doesn't like big government, I prefer seeing detail spending adjustments relative to the annual budget. You prefer seeing detail spending adjsutments relative to the annual GDP and for good reason. You're a big government liberal Republican. My way looks at each budget line item compared to each annual federal budget, on a stand alone basis. Since most of the nitty-gritty details at OMB.gov are expressed in annual budget numbers and not GDP percentages, my way is obviously more helpful and more useful.
>>>>>I'm a practical conservative Republican, but instead of making this about me, let's try to stay on the topic of Dubya, OK?
I've seen nothing practical or conservative about your politics. If you don't want to be made the issue, I suggest you don't go round using making comments like: "slavish conservative misrepresentation".
>>>>It's not an analogy it's an indisputable fact.
You made an analogy to my remarks about Bush being a liberal spender and how you didn't consider his "modest increases" in spending to be "liberal". Problem. That's exactly what he is.
From the Heritage Foundation to the CATO institute. All the major rightwing analysis that has been done on the Bush budgets indicate he is the biggest spender since LBJ. Even bigger then Clinton. Check out the following graphs. Hopefully you find them instructive.
No matter. The fact remains, Bush hasn't raised taxes to pay for the WOT, he's just run up the deficit to $400-billion. With Bush its not 'tax and spend', its 'borrow and spend'.
>>>>That's really funny. You are a walking contradiction. You say Reagan budgets are the Congresses fault. The credit for budgets Clinton signed goes to the Congress, but Dubya's budgets are Dubya's fault.
You don't think logically. Reagan governed with a Democrat controlled House. Clinton was held in check by a conservative GOP Congress. Bush43 has the best of both worlds. Bush is the leader of the GOP, his party controls the full Congress, yet he still can't get a handle on welfare entitlement spending. Pathetic.
>>>>Reagan's 21% GDP budgets are "fiscal conservative", but Dubya's 19% & 20% GDP budgets are "liberal fiscal policy."
You really need to pay attention. We've covered this ground already. Reagan cut non-defense/non-security related discretionary spending (see chart), significantly reduced welfare entitlement spending to roughly 50% of the annual budget and spent 24%-28% on national defense over his eight years in office.
Bush has increased non-defense/non-security related discretionary spending, increased welfare entitlement spending, now at 65% of the annual budget and defense spending is headed down, not up. Add in the Bush trillion dollar Medicare PDP, his doubling the Education budget and signing off on three huge government boondoggles, the transportation bill, the farm bill and the energy bill. No doubt about it, Bush is a big government Republican.
>>>>>Well, then I win again.
You may win the boob prize but nothing more. Bush proposes a $2.8 trillion budget and you think thats a positive event. Like I said, you're neither practical nor cosnervative.
I remain optimistic. It was just 12 short years ago that Gingrich led the conservative revolution which took control of Congress. The GOP machine is now controlled by the Bush forces, pushing an agenda that scoffs at serious spending reforms. After Bush exits the scene, hopefully fiscal responsibility on spending will rule the day once again.
If a traditional mainstream conservative like myself is changing his tune, good chance many other mainstream conservatives are having second thoughts too. There is absolutely nothing appealing about a GOP that advances a status quo agenda over a solid conservative agenda when it comes to issues of federal spending.
Your figures don't match Fred Barnes Hey, Big Spenders! .
Only, President Bush has an excuse--better yet, a reason--in 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Grant him this and the picture changes dramatically. Minus the additional expenditures for defense and homeland security, spending doesn't look so extravagant. In 2003, discretionary domestic spending rose 5 percent, while defense was up 11 percent and homeland security 85 percent. For 2004, the Office of Management and Budget projects a hike of less than 3 percent in domestic spending and rises of 4 percent in defense and 24 percent in homeland security. The defense number doesn't include "supplemental" spending of an estimated $50 billion in 2004 from the recent $87 billion appropriation for Iraq.
Dubya tried to do something about entitlement spending by pushing for SS reform, but as you should know, Presidents don't have control over entitlement spending. The Congress will have to solve that...I know I know everything is Dubya's fault, but your implication that we are not seeing the lions share of discretionary spending increase on national defense is just plain loony and unsupportable unless you fail to include wars and homeland security as part of the national defense.
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.