|
Sanity -> RE: Bush, Obama to tag-team lawmakers for bailout cash (1/12/2009 8:54:19 PM)
|
Sorry, but you're just totally wrong. Bush increased spending in every possible area, including practically every bloated social program there is.
Name one he managed to cut... I'll bet you can't do it. In fact,
quote:
President George W. Bush is now on his way to becoming the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) to not veto a single bill. The result is a congress that has been completely unconstrained in satiating its appetite for pork and corporate welfare. In response, Democratic challenger John Kerry has maligned alleged spending cuts and called for even higher taxes and spending. The consequence is that we now have two parties competing to see which can grow government faster.
From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending, George W. Bush has demonstrated that “limited government” is not part of his political vocabulary.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31
Please note, that includes all kinds of social programs. I don't know where you've been getting your information but you might want to try broadening the selection of reading materials you consume, or perhaps try turning the channel occasionally.
That's Bush. As for Reagan:
quote:
George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. It's true that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across-the-board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. And Reagan, indeed, lightened the tax burden on the American people and oversaw a massive increase in defense spending. Thus, given Bush's recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting.
But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan.
Let's look at the facts. Compared to the same point in Reagan's first term, not only is Bush a bigger spender than Reagan, he's a big spender in his own right. Adjusted for inflation, total spending under Bush's watch will have increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under Reagan. But more indicative of Bush's spending problem is the run-up in discretionary spending under his watch. Discretionary spending represents funds for programs that Congress has to allocate for on an annual basis and it is the type of spending that the president has the most influence over.
Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3043
|
|
|
|
