Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by KenH, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go here - www.independent.org/tii/content/press_rel/press_040624.html - and look at this chart and see why no one who wants limited government can possibly vote for George W. Bush in 2004 without betraying his own philosophy.


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Thursday, June 24, 2004
    Contact: (510) 632-1366
    [email protected]

    Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases
    at Fastest Rate in 30 Years


    Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, over $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

    As predicted by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, author of such key books as Crisis and Leviathan and the new Against Leviathan, this explosion of government power would only have been possible in the aftermath of 9/11. Times of crisis present the easiest opportunities for politicians to take advantage of a frightened American public.

    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.

    - 30 -
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And voting for who is going to change that?
     
  3. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector." -- Ronald Reagan

    "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

    "I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!" -- Everett Hale
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry asked:
    Michael Peroutka, or Michael Badnarik for that matter.

    Anyone who votes for President Bush or Senator Kerry is voting for a bigger central government. Now if someone wants a bigger central government, then they should certainly for one of those two. But don't dare vote for one of those two and claim that you want a smaller central government.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And how will they change federal spending from their law offices???

    Voting for Peroutka is a vote to increase the government faster under John Kerry. Ken, get your head out of hte sand. Peroutka will not be able to change anything. You have to get elected to do that. It is fun to live in the dreamland if "If I were president," but he is not going to be. He does not have the wherewithal to mount a serious candidacy. He will not change federal spending.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And George W. Bush will increase federal spending. And your retort is limited to lamely saying, "But he will increase it less than John Kerry". Frankly, I don't even believe that since President Bush has increased domestic spending way more than the last Democratic president - Bill Clinton.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    He will ... and perhaps as much as Kerry. But there are still judicial appointments and the shape of the courst for years to come ...
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are assuming that President Bush would appoint clear cut pro-life judges to the central government Supreme Court. I disagree with your assumption. Has President Bush said this year that if he is re-elected that he will use the abortion issue as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees?
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    When looking at the numbers, I find it interesting tht in the first Clinton term when the Democrats also controlled the Congress that domestic spending hardly increased compared to the second Clinton term when the Republicans controlled the Congress.
     
  10. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Ken shows that Bush is the wildest spender in 30 years)

    Almost anyone. Note that Kerry is almost as bad.

    But you don't have to vote for either wing of the demopublicans.

    Peroutka.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you just get here?? I have said for a very long time what Bush has said, and whehter or not he backs it up, at least there is a chance, with Kerry there is no chance.

    And Peroutka can't change a thing, Galatian. You actually have to get elected.
     
  12. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that most conservative Christians will continue to support the Republican party, because "they are the only party that stands a chance of winning" for quite some time.

    I had a pastor tell me the other day, that he would continue to support the Republican party even if they run a pro-abortion candidate in 2008 and take the pro-life plank out of the GOP platform, simply because "third-parties don't stand a chance".

    When I vote in November I am not just looking at who will be in office for the next four short years. I am looking forward to 2008, 2012 and 216. If we don't stand up now, when will we?
     
  13. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush hasn't been screening his judicial appointments now for pro-life. In fact, he says he is opposed to doing so.

    What makes you think he's going to change in the second term?
     
  14. joGOPsh

    joGOPsh
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know what I sm sick and tired of what you are saying about our president. What do dems. have against Bush except pure hate nothing or they would be hypocritical. Why? Bush has taken the democratic agenda from themselves. I don't agree with some of his jugdements but overall we shouldn't complain. Besides what is a vote for John Kerry going to do he's taken almost every position Bush has taken on almost every issue at one point or another. Did I here right that theresa Heinz-kerry said that she would give all her money to have her first husband back who was a Republican senator? I would probably do the same thing if my husband always blamed everything on me. The DN convention doesn't even have enough money to pay for food. they'll have a convention without a candidate John Kerry is so hypocritical the dems cant even allow a lot of alr time on TV for fear He'll say something wrong or lie or take ANOTHER position on another issue.
     
  15. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your right Bush has taken the democratic agenda and made it his own, which is why he has attracted so many moderate and liberal voters. The only problem with this is that now that he has taken the democratic agenda for himself, he can't go back to the right or he will lose those voters. If he keeps taking democratic agendas for himself, what will make his agenda different from theirs?

    In scrolling throgh this thread I don't see anyone who has said they will be voting for John Kerry. There are three Peroutka voters and including yourself, two Bush voters.
     
  16. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most folks are sick and tired of the president, period.

    You'd have to ask a democrat. I, for one, would be OK with him doing what Clinton did for the economy and foreign policy. He could even do the bad thing Clinton did, as far as I'm concerned, if he could just do a competent job.

    If he messes up, it's our duty to complain.

    That's pretty much inevitable. Bush has had just about every possible position on just about every issue.

    If so, she should have no end of applicants. Money is pretty much the motivator for Republican senators.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, you show how uninformed you are, or at least are playing dumb. Bush has consistently said he will appoint strict constructionists. Virtually everyone understands this to mean pro life. That is why the pro abortion people are scared to death of him.

    He may not appoint a pro life judge. But at least there will be a chance. With Kerry, there will be no chance. It would be hypocritical, IMO, to profess to be pro life while helping to elect Kerry. I can't do that. We need to take our best shot and not weasel out of it.
     
  18. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush I used the term "strict constructionists", but nominated pro-choice justices, Bush II used the term "strict constructionists" while govenor of Texas, but still appointed pro-choice judges. Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales to the position of screening potential U.S. Supreme Court justice nominees. Gonzales believes the Constitution is a living document and that only the nine black-robed brethren have sufficient understanding of the document to explain to the people what it means, that is not a "strict constructionists" understanding of the Constiution.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    You betcha, Larry.
     
  20. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    The Constitution Party is a do-nothing party. They are a type of para-church organization. They would abolish foreign aid in spite of the fact that in places like Sudan--in case you didn't watch it on tv this weekend--people are starving.

    As for the Libertarians, I imagine that they are mostly pro-choice. They would never abolish abortion. However, they would abolish the laws against same-sex marriage, drugs, and prostitution. Is it any wonder that these two do-nothing parties actually say that they are close together? Their combined slogan is the imperial British slogan.
     

Share This Page

Loading...