Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » George "LBJ" Bush, Part XXXVI

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: George "LBJ" Bush, Part XXXVI
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.techcentralstation.com/062205B.html

quote:
Today, we know that compassionate conservatism is really just big government and changing the tone means his veto pen is buried under the ground. The last four years, total spending has risen 33 percent - a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. Adjusted for inflation, one would have to go back to Lyndon Johnson to find a larger increase. Moreover, real discretionary spending increases in FY2002, FY2003, FY2004 and FY2005 are 4 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years.
Courtesy of the pinko commies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes.

It is a good thing they're calling Bush a 'Neo-Con' rather than a 'Conservative'. He is in no way a fiscally conservative President.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David,

Do you think there is some kind of groundswell of conservative support here on OA for Dubya's borrow- and-spend, guns-and-butter domestic policies?

I don't see it here at all....

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting, I thought that the administrations of the 70's were noted for their 40%+ spending increases. I don't have the figures handy, and I am not sure where to look for them, but I do remember reading that relatively recently. I will see if I can find where I read it and take a closer look to see if I am mistaken, or if what I read was mistaken.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Carter was bad.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you make of this chart from OMB?

Spending Restraint [PDF]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More information from factcheck

Defending Spending? Bush's Blooper

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slander Monkey
Member
Member # 1999

 - posted      Profile for Slander Monkey   Email Slander Monkey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just for you Worky Dave (but the source is confidential... so don't you go pokin' your nose around the cbo website):
---

Year /----/ Total Budget Increase (%) /----/ Discretionary Budget Increase (%)
1963 ---------------------------- 4.21 ----------------------------------------- 4.44
1964 ---------------------------- 6.47 ----------------------------------------- 5.05
1965 ---------------------------- -0.25 ---------------------------------------- -1.64
1966 ---------------------------- 13.79 ---------------------------------------- 15.81
1967 ---------------------------- 17.10 ---------------------------------------- 18.20
1968 ---------------------------- 13.08 ---------------------------------------- 10.80
1969 ---------------------------- 3.09 ----------------------------------------- -0.59
1970 ---------------------------- 6.59 ----------------------------------------- 2.56
1971 ---------------------------- 7.41 ----------------------------------------- 1.83
1972 ---------------------------- 9.75 ----------------------------------------- 4.90
1973 ---------------------------- 6.50 ----------------------------------------- 1.48
1974 ---------------------------- 9.65 ----------------------------------------- 5.98
1975 ---------------------------- 23.35 ---------------------------------------- 14.33
1976 ---------------------------- 11.89 ---------------------------------------- 11.14
1977 ---------------------------- 10.06 ---------------------------------------- 12.24
1978 ---------------------------- 12.10 ---------------------------------------- 10.96
1979 ---------------------------- 9.88 ----------------------------------------- 9.74
1980 ---------------------------- 17.24 ---------------------------------------- 15.13
1981 ---------------------------- 14.77 ---------------------------------------- 11.44
1982 ---------------------------- 9.95 ----------------------------------------- 5.88
1983 ---------------------------- 8.41 ----------------------------------------- 8.37
1984 ---------------------------- 5.38 ----------------------------------------- 7.39
1985 ---------------------------- 11.09 ---------------------------------------- 9.59
1986 ---------------------------- 4.65 ----------------------------------------- 5.46
1987 ---------------------------- 1.38 ----------------------------------------- 1.30
1988 ---------------------------- 6.02 ----------------------------------------- 4.55
1989 ---------------------------- 7.45 ----------------------------------------- 5.25
1990 ---------------------------- 9.56 ----------------------------------------- 2.41
1991 ---------------------------- 5.68 ----------------------------------------- 6.53
1992 ---------------------------- 4.33 ----------------------------------------- 0.09
1993 ---------------------------- 2.02 ----------------------------------------- 1.05
1994 ---------------------------- 3.72 ----------------------------------------- 0.37
1995 ---------------------------- 3.69 ----------------------------------------- 0.65
1996 ---------------------------- 2.95 ----------------------------------------- -2.24
1997 ---------------------------- 2.61 ----------------------------------------- 2.72
1998 ---------------------------- 3.21 ----------------------------------------- 0.90
1999 ---------------------------- 2.98 ----------------------------------------- 3.60
2000 ---------------------------- 5.12 ----------------------------------------- 7.48
2001 ---------------------------- 4.13 ----------------------------------------- 5.61
2002 ---------------------------- 7.94 ----------------------------------------- 13.09
2003 ---------------------------- 7.40 ----------------------------------------- 12.41
2004 ---------------------------- 6.13 ----------------------------------------- 8.43

Posts: 258 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Freaky. Bill's looking like about the best steward of the shared purse in many years.

Slander Monkey and Drake, thank you for digging up these numbers. One of the things I like about Ornery is the stubborn determination to find the data with the fewest trips through intellectual alimentary tracks.

Per GW's "blooper," I suppose you can make a distinction between "security" spending and "discretionary" spending, but it still really begs the question of where you paint your lines, and how well you color inside those lines. It's all still my money. (yes! all of it!)

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
Freaky. Bill's looking like about the best steward of the shared purse in many years.

Slander Monkey and Drake, thank you for digging up these numbers. One of the things I like about Ornery is the stubborn determination to find the data with the fewest trips through intellectual alimentary tracks.

Per GW's "blooper," I suppose you can make a distinction between "security" spending and "discretionary" spending, but it still really begs the question of where you paint your lines, and how well you color inside those lines. It's all still my money. (yes! all of it!)

Yep, Bill & a Republican congress was a good combination for the nation's purse strings.

Ya'all - please remember that you need to include Congress in any comparison when it comes to the nation's budget.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Carter was bad.
You mean in terms of money spending?
Or do you mean in a general sense of a pronounced moral lack?

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Spending. Carter had a spending problem [Smile] Well, some people wouldn't call it a problem, but nonetheless...
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regardless of security spending or not, I think it is always wrong to spend more than you take in. Where's that Amendment pile? Balanced Budget Amendment, you were around here somewhere...

Second Javelin's point about the Congress.

This, from March 2005:

quote:
The Senate last night dealt a slap to President Bush and the Republican leadership, approving a 2006 budget that would gut much of the GOP's deficit-reduction efforts by restoring requested cuts to Medicaid, education, community development and other programs.

With their deficit-reduction targets disappearing, Senate Republicans also nearly doubled the budget plan's tax cuts to $134 billion over five years. The budget passed 51 to 49, with four Republicans voting no.


Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe there are valid reasons for deficit spending (don't really like the balanced budget amendment). If you'd like to discuss why there are cases where deficit spending, by a government, is acceptable, I'd be happy to try to get the material together.

A hint, however: government spending can make a recession more shallow.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slander Monkey
Member
Member # 1999

 - posted      Profile for Slander Monkey   Email Slander Monkey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Drake,

I actually predicted that the proposed spending cuts would never really materialize a few months ago (pity I didn't say anything out loud about it then). The short version of why I thought so can be summed up by the following two links (drawing the conclusion is left as an exercise to the reader):

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State
Analysis of tax burdens and expenditures in relation to the Bush-Gore election results

Summary: the "red" states are, for the most part, the biggest recipients of federal money... (my interpretation:) this puts the republican representatives in those states in the awkward position of supporting the president or getting re-elected. In my opinion, this is evidence that we really need different parties controlling the legislative and executive branches if we are to have any hope of fiscal sanity.

Whether you agree or not, it's interesting to look at.

Posts: 258 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1