Half right, half wrong. The Bush trillion dollar Medicare PDP, his doubling of the Education budget and signing off on three huge spending bills for transportation, farming and energy did nothing to deal with the recession. That is Keynesian economics as formulated by John M. Keynes, not the supply side economics and limited government made famous by Ronald Reagan.
In addition, Bush not using his veto pen to demand the GOP Congress reduce pork barrel spending has only exacerbated the federal budget problems. Last year there were over 15,000 earmarks totalling some $50 billion in excessive waste, fraud and abuse. Let our CongressCritters put their names onto bills and follow the legislative process.
PresBush was smart in one aspect. He took a page out of PresReagan's playbook and dealt with the recession using supply side tax cuts. Bush pushed through tax cuts that stimulated spending, savings and investment. That gave the economy a jolt and lessoned the effects of the short economic downturn.
National defense is a Constitutional mandate. OTOH, advocating a liberal fiscal policy that allows huge increases to government spending and bureaucracy aren't part of any "practical Republican" policy I know of. Again, that is Keynesian economics. For the last five years Bush and the GOP have shown they're liberal spenders of the taxpayers money.
>>>>>Clinton got a balanced budget from the Congress at the expense of our military, but his spending in 95 was 20.7% of GDP. Reagan's in 85 was 22.8% of GDP. Dubya's was 19.9% in 05. So far Dubya's budgets have all been smaller in terms of GDP than the Reagan/Bush budgets. The budgets Dubya signed are not much higher than the 18.4% and 18.6% GPD spending of the lowest budgets clinton signed.
Clinton reached a balanced budget not becasue of anything he advocated, but because of what the GOP controlled Congress forced him to do. The Contract With America held his feet to the fire on spending. Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Trent Lott kept Clinton in check. They tightened spending, reformed welfare and gave us tax reform. The same economic steps Reagan took in the 1980`s. It's called, fiscal conservatism.
>>>>So far Dubya's budgets have all been smaller in terms of GDP than the Reagan/Bush budgets.
I don't think government spending versus gross domestic product in real economic terms has that much relevent meaning. Its used primarily by people who want to give cover to the big government Democrats and Republicans who dwell inside the BeltWay. As a goal, conservatives would support shrinking the federal bureaucracy to 15% of GDP for starters and taking it down each year, eventually reaching a 10% figure. More then enough cash to run the US government per the Constitution.
A major reason for the high spending in the 1980`s, was Reagan's increases in defense. Reagan spent 24.8%-28.1% of his eight annual budget on national defense. Bush43 has spent 17.3%-19.9% on defense. By 2009 that is estimated to be at 16.9%. Reagan's big defense budgets paid off. We won the Cold War, dismantled the USSR and the communist states of the Eastern Bloc. Reagan's policies freed 500 million people from totalitarianism.
>>>>In light of the facts, and the context of reality, characterizing Dubya's modest increases from the late 90's budgets as "liberal" sounds like slavish conservative misrepresentation.
Spoken like a good liberal Republican. As I already mentioned, Bush's trillion dollar Medicare PDP --- the biggest increase in government spending since Medicare itself was created in the 1960`s under LBJ --- his doubling of the Education budget and signing off on three huge spending bills for transportation, farming and energy have nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. And Bush`s promise to spend whatever it takes to rebuild the gulf coast after Katrina, was not the rhetoric of fiscal responsibile leader.
>>>>No other President has fought a major conflict without raising taxes since before the Civil War.
That is a terrible analogy. The federal government was no where near the size back during the Civil War, that it is today. Today, federal income taxes take roughly 20% of the average workers paycheck. Isn't that enough for you? 10% should be more then enough.
You can't have it both ways. Either you're a fiscal conservative or you're not. From your rhetoric, you've been paying lip service to the idea of Bush and the GOP Congress behaving in a fiscally responsibile fashion. I don't see Bush reversing his five years of liberal spending and expanding the federal bureaucracy. Bush`s latest budget comes in at $2.7 trillion. I rest my case.
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.