The Tea Party Did the Right Thing

Here are some basic links for you:

President Bush expanded public spending by 70 percent, more than double the increase under President Clinton. Bush was the first president in 176 years to continue an entire term without vetoing any legislation.[55]

The tax cuts, recession, and increases in outlays all contributed to record budget deficits during the Bush administration. The annual deficit reached record current-dollar levels of US$374 billion in 2003 and US$413 billion in 2004. National debt, the cumulative total of yearly deficits, rose from US$5.7 trillion (58% of GDP) to US$8.3 trillion (67% of GDP) under Bush,[56] as compared to the US$2.7 trillion total debt owed when Ronald Reagan left office, which was 52% of the GDP.[57]

According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending by the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget Projections,[58] the budget deficits will decrease over the next several years. In this projection the deficit will fall to US$368 billion in 2005, US$261 billion in 2007, and US$207 billion in 2009, with a small surplus by 2012. The CBO noted, however, that this projection "omits a significant amount of spending that will occur this year — and possibly for some time to come — for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other activities related to the global War on Terrorism." The projection also assumes that the Bush tax cuts "will expire as scheduled on December 31, 2010." If, as Bush has urged, the tax cuts were to be extended, then "the budget outlook for 2015 would change from a surplus of US$141 billion to a deficit of US$282 billion." Other economists have disputed this, arguing that the CBO does not use dynamic scoring, to take into account what effect tax cuts would have on the economy.

Federal spending in constant dollars increased under Bush by 26% in his first four and a half years. Non-defense spending increased 18% in that time.[59] Of the US$2.4 trillion budgeted for 2005, about US$450 billion are planned to be spent on defense. This level is generally comparable to the defense spending during the cold war.[60] Congress approved US$87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in November, and had approved an earlier US$79 billion package last spring. Most of those funds were for U.S. military operations in the two countries.

Former President Clinton's last budget featured an increase of 16% on domestic non security discretionary spending. Growth under President Bush was cut to 6.2% in his first budget, 5.5% in his second, 4.3% in his third, and 2.2% in his fourth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

How much did Iraq cost?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15377059/

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm

Prescription drug bill cost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

Pork-laden highway bill cost:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8894520/

Pork-laden energy bill cost:

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Just getting warmed up:

12-16-09bud-rev-infocus.jpg
 
"In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated
48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other
things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of
Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. "

LOL - that's just the largest increase.

Have you checked the annual increases up until that point?

Check 'em. Then apologize for the TEA folks some more.
 
"In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated
48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other
things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of
Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. "

LOL - that's just the largest increase.

Have you checked the annual increases up until that point?

Check 'em. Then apologize for the TEA folks some more.

you obviously haven't and you obviously still refuse to read my link

how embarrassing for you

like i said, the bulk was done towards the end....my link proves that, nothing you've linked to disproves any of that, but i know you are incapable of admitting you're wrong, so spin away little dancing elf
 
LMAO.... really... so to you he did that when...

1) he refused to look at the PEER reviewed paper and tried dismissing it by saying 'that university is laughable' or was it when he stated 'not enough scientists have heard of this guy'? Which was it that made you think 'wow, Cypress really refuted that paper'?

2) or was it when he refused to answer simple questions like 'WHO was on the review panels', 'WHO initiated the reviews', 'Why do you say the debate is over when your own unimpeachable source says the debate is not over'? Was it one of those that made you think that Cypress somehow gave me a beating?

As I stated, Cypress is a parrot. He is incapable of discussion. He posts his government/government funded links and proclaims the debate is over.... like a good little parrot.

They're obviously supporting this; because they're trying to justify all that money they were talked into spending, to offset their "carbon footprint". :good4u:
 
"In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated
48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other
things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of
Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. "

LOL - that's just the largest increase.

Have you checked the annual increases up until that point?

Check 'em. Then apologize for the TEA folks some more.



Heh:

WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.

[snip]

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.

When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.

That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.

Discretionary spending went up in Bush's first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/10/24/20767/bush-is-the-biggest-spender-since.html#ixzz0uA4vlJvJ
 
I don't think the word "wrong" is in Yurt's vocab.

But Yurt - just so you know - you're apologism for the ideologically-driven TEA party is duly noted.
 
how am i wrong? are you saying the graph and the report are false? nothing you have provided counters the graphs and the report....just man up for once and admit you fucked up onceler

once again for the mental midget

GWB%20Analysis_Figure%202_Federal%20Budget%20Annual%20GrowthClintonBush.JPG
 
"In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated
48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other
things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of
Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. "

LOL - that's just the largest increase.

Have you checked the annual increases up until that point?

Check 'em. Then apologize for the TEA folks some more.

FYI.... the largest increase in spending by Bush and the largest deficit by far occurred in 2008... due in large part to the economy.... also, you should take note of who controlled the Budget purse strings at that time. The President does not pass the Budget.... CONGRESS does.
 
Figure 4 demonstrates how in FY2009—President Bush’s last budget—the federal
government will spend $32,942.90 per household, up from $17,216.68 in FY2001. It will
tax $18,286.74 per household and will run a budget deficit of $14,656.16 per household.

how onceler can ignore this and run from admitting he is wrong here is boggling....such self denial is pathological
 
Hey Yurt, can you post Figure 3 for everyone, please? Just for giggles.

i already said i don't know how to copy from the pdf...that one graph i have been posting i was able to copy off google images, why don't you post it, it actually further reinforces that i was right about spending increasing greater at the end, hence my comments supra were 100% accurate

why can't you be honest and admit i was right....it grew largely at the end....you claimed that was bullshit, my link and the graph clearly show i am right yet you and your retarded classmate won't admit you're wrong

the graph expressly backs my claim up
 
Figure 3 is a hoot.

Yurt - you're entire argument here is one of the most dishonest I've seen out of you.

All you were doing was apologizing for the TEA party. Admit your partisanship and blindness to the hypocrisy of the right.

Oh, wait - nevermind. You already have.
 
Back
Top