Washington's $782 Billion Spending Spree

Capitalism Magazine ^ | Novemebr 29, 2002 | Brian Riedl

[Blood of Tyrants]

Bush the conservative? Before he was nominated I said that he wasn't a conservative.

[AmusedBystander]

Small price to pay to keep the country out of Jimmy Carter-like recession which would have cost us much more in the long run. No gloom and doom over Reagan's deficit spending as that investment came back in the 1990's, only problem was that Clinton was given all the credit.

You will see Bush proposing balanced budgets through the rest of his term, and with a Republican congress it might just happen.

[anobjectivist]

Huh? More spending to keep us out of a recession?

[Blood of Tyrants]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[poet]

Dream On! You ain's seen nothing yet.

[cgbg]

Don't you just love it when politicians of either party visit city or town x and proclaim:

"I am so proud to bring z million federal dollars to help the people of this community"

?

Such proclamations should be banned until penalty of jail.

Until the politicians stop feeling so good about their spending they sure aren't going to stop doing it. :(

[Uncle Bill]

The collapse of the supposed Republican Revolution demonstrates the truth of George Wallace's taunt three decades ago: There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the major parties.

HOW CONSERVATIVE IS PRESIDENT BUSH?

BUSH SPENDING BILL LARGEST EVER

Hooyah!

"The surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government."
George W. Bush - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000.

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Askel5]

Hooyah!! indeed ...

How come this thread doesn't have 300 replies, Uncle Bill?

[Moonman62]

With the 2003 federal budget almost done, there’s now a price tag for this 2000-2003 spending spree: $782 billion in new spending. Not $782 billion in total spending, mind you, but $782 billion above what Washington spent in the previous four years. Eventually, taxes will need to be raised by more than $5,000 per household to pay for it. With the exception of World War II, on a per-household basis, 2000-2003 will become the largest four-year federal spending spree in American history.

Thank goodness Bush is giving the SEC .85 billion dollars to keep an eye on evil corporations. But nobody needs to keep an eye on the government. We can trust them. And in related news, the accounting oversight board voted themselves half million dollar salaries. There's a new tone in Washington.

[Moonman62]

How did Congress and the president do it? Did they carefully assess the nation’s needs and then decide that one or two national priorities were worth an extra $782 billion?

They looked at what votes were for sale and then how much they could pay for them with other people's money.

It’s a classic case of death by a thousand blows -- record spending increases for dozens of programs, none by itself fatal but collectively lethal.

A billion here, a billion there. Before you know it, that adds up to real money.

[america-rules]

"Bush the conservative? Before he was nominated I said that he wasn't a conservative. "

test time?

Under Ronald Reagan the federal outlay went up 7 out of 8 years. The US went over 200 Billion in debt under Reagan.

test: Was Reagan a Conservative?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Money isn't the only test.

Would Reagan have signed CAFR?

Would Reagan be considering giving amnest to MILLIONS of ILLEGAL aliens?

Would Reagan have proposed giving those same ILLEGAL aliens social security?

Did Reagan propose a piddly 10% reduction in the income tax and then settle for a plan that brought them in incrementally over TEN years (only to have an automatic sunset in the 11th year)?

Would Reagan have bought that "don't ask, don't tell" B.S. that Bush has?

[Uncle Bill]

Can you feel that compassionate conservatism coming?

Spending Bill to Test Senate GOP - Thursday, January 16, 2003
"Republican senators, who hope to use their new majority status to enact the president's agenda, yesterday began trying to clear a major obstacle: a mammoth, more than $400 billion spending package...The spending bill, among the largest in memory, will determine this year's funding levels for homeland security, education, drought relief for farmers, Medicare payments to doctors and the budgets of scores of federal agencies. Republicans have vowed to pass it quickly, as proof that GOP control of Congress can overcome the bickering that stalled dozens of initiatives last year.

But even as Republicans brought the measure to the Senate floor late yesterday, it was clear that the tight fiscal constraints ordered by the White House,..."

---

"tight fiscal constraints ordered by the White House." Tight fiscal constraints? Hahahahaha. LOL!

Shocking, just shocking. Thank goodness the Republicans are "winning."

[MissAmericanPie]

You were right and I was wrong about how in debt we are. We are 34 trillion in debt. No one can possibly wrap their mind around that figgure.

I posted on another thread that we have a mere 200 billion stars in our solar system, 34 trillion adds up to almost a universe of spending. It more than boggles the mind.

[Askel5]

Gee ... consciences sure are going for quite a lot these days ... particularlyi given the fact that most have the consistency and substance of a June Bug shell.

[NittanyLion]

Many lawmakers have tried to blame Sept. 11th-related defense spending. But new defense spending represents just 21 percent of the $782 billion total spending increase, and less than a quarter of that increase can be attributed directly to the war on terrorism.

The GOP should be ashamed. (And this thread should have 1000 replies by now, though I'm not surprised it doesn't.)

[FOMTY]

Rolling back decades of governmental largesse bump.