You mock me when I call this current administration true believers in the power of expansive government, but via Andrew Sullivan, here are the facts and figures:
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn
Kimmitt
The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001.
I’ve heard claims and counterclaims in this area. Could I take a gander at your source? Thanks.
John Cole
Should be in the .pdf. Not sure you don;t trust it though- they are crediting Clinton with spending 57 billion less than he proposed.
paul a'barge
Andrew Sullivan is an idiot, an ass and a loser.
Help yourself out here and find someone else to quote when you need to spout this kind of nonsense.
John Cole
I am sorry you feel that way, but I am left to presume you are an ass as well, since I did not quote Andrew Sullivan at all.
I quoted the Cato Institute. That is what all those tricky hyperlinks are for.
JG
I don’t care who it came from, facts are facts. It is fun to see people attack the source of the facts when they don’t like the facts. LOL I can see why these new republicans allied themselves with the religious right. Blind unquestioning faith is essential for this administration.
Justin Faulkner
Ah, true believers!
Stormy70
Mu husband did not vote for Bush in 2004, because of the spending issue.
On a side note, is the Prescription Drug Bill, the one that established HSAs under the radar?
Rick
John,
Yes, this is an area where Bush and the pubbie Congress disappoint.
Yet still there arises the shrieks of “radical right,” when by objective dollar measure, they’re behaving like bleeding heart redistributionists.
Cordially…
Jay
This of course flies in the face of all the weenie liberals who claim Bush has “gutted” program after program.
Mr Furious
But 9/11 changed everything!…no, wait…We’re at war!…Er, we need to jumpstart the economy!…I mean, trial lawyers…
The worse part? The country as a whole has nothing to show for all this spending except a giant fucking bill. Bush and his cronies have been giving away the store to corporate donors and the wealthiest of the wealthy.
Kimmitt
they’re behaving like bleeding heart redistributionists.
The point of redistributing is for poor folks to get something. That has yet to happen.
Sorry for missing your second link, and anyways, yeeha, Andrew Sullivan and the Cato Institute. It’s like a worldwide folk whirlwind of non-credible. I’ll have to see what I can dig up from other sources.
Justin Faulkner
“Non-credible,” or “non-loyal”?
Rick
Kimmett,
You mean the Great Society has been rolled back. Hallelujah!!!
Actually, the modern point of redistributing is to totally mix the ingredients, so just about every thinks they’re getting something. At least, more than they pay out. Putting the hooks into the middle class.
Oh, the poor have access to vouchers so their children might receive an education somewhat comparable to the elites. But that’s a *bad* thing, right?
Cordially…
Kimmitt
“Non-credible,” or “non-loyal”?
Loyal to whom?
Brian
Facts are for liberals!
All we conservatives need is the Strong Hand and Pure Will of the Dear Leader.
Johnny
People still think this administration is old time conservative?
Please … this is about power, getting it, maintaining it, and lessening other peoples chances to get it, pure and simple.
These people (rove et al) would have hitched their star to the American Communist Party if it would have given them a better shot at getting elected.
Traditional values? Less intrusive government? Sanctity of marriage? Lees government spending?
This is about power and control, nothing more.
You can just take your Bill of Rights and stuff it.
SteveO
Oh, the poor have access to vouchers so their children might receive an education somewhat comparable to the elites. But that’s a *bad* thing, right?
Taking more money from an under funded educational system? How can that be bad?
Sure, can I use vouchers at schools that teach fundamentalist Islamic principles? I know I can use them at fundamentalist Christian schools …
Another privatization hack.
You want to privatize everything, because the free market decides best … except when it comes to pornography (seems to be a big demand for that, but it’s got to be stopped), or drugs (can’t have people using a free market there).
BTW, how’s the sale on fire departments and police departments going?
M. Scott Eiland
Can’t wait for the bill for the Prescription Drug Bill (aka Sloppy Kisses to Big Pharm) comes in.
John, I know you’ve been ticked off at the Republicans lately, but when you start borrowing rhetoric from the more asinine section of “Harry Reid’s Greatest Hits,” it might be time for a deep breath.
John Cole
Harry Reid’s quote is “Big Wet Kiss.”
BotW had the rundown yesterday.
And my opposition to the prescription drug giveaway is well chronicled- I may be guilty of borrowing and adapting the rhetoric, but I have ALWAYS been horrified by that awful bill.
Would you like me to change it to ‘Budget Busting Tax Increase Guarantee?’
JG
‘This of course flies in the face of all the weenie liberals who claim Bush has “gutted” program after program.’
Not if you consider that when they say ‘gutted’ they mean cut all funding yet increased spending. Tax-cut and spend.
Halffasthero
I wish that these “Coservatives” had been conservatives instead of a corporate Father Christmas. We are going to n eed tax hikes to bankroll the debts we are running up. We cannot “grow” out of this mess. The insterest we are paying is grabbing a larger and larger part of the budget. Just balancing the yearly budget, which is done with the help of including Social Security’s current surplus, will not be enough. We have to garner a surplus for an even longer period of time than pre-Bush to zero out this balance. And when surpluses start showing, it is a damn sure thing that someone will find a way to say another damned “tax-cut” will be needed because we are obviously taking in too much money. Never mind the old debt load we are carrying.
My two cents.
Rick
Taking more money from an under funded educational system? How can that be bad?
You think public education is underfunded? And you expect to be taken seriously?
And sadly, the vouchers take nothing from public schools but potential miseducation victims.
Cordially…
Rick
Not if you consider that when they say ‘gutted’ they mean cut all funding yet increased spending. Tax-cut and spend.
The current budget proposal is the first from Bush that even *begins* to trim funding.
Please give two examples of “cut all funding yet increased spending.”
The Republicans tired of being “the tax collectors for the welfare state,” so this current insoucience towards the deficit might be a reprise of the “starve the beast” 80s.
Except for that damn drug “entitlement.”
Cordially…
chloeindia
So, are you righties finally getting it? You have been scewed by Bushco. The recent news shows that we are militarily in deep shit, we have out-of-control budgets that do not provide basic services for our most vulnerable populations, we have tax cuts for the very rich, and the feds are overriding the states on more issues than I can track. Just what is it that you like about these guys? Or are you just too embarrassed to admit that you have been played for fools? Wake up, these guys have got to go. Real Republicans would never have given us this shit.
John Gillnitz
There is a difference between conservatives and neoconservatives. There is also a difference between neoconservatives and frauds whose only devotion is to other people’s money.
Rick
All Power to the Dominionists!!!
And pass the smelling salts.
Cordially…
Halffasthero
chloeindia, the Democrats were not very good at removing programs that didn’t work. If there was a way to sunset programs that everyone could accept then we can all live happily ever after. The problem is that once a program is started, it has to continue to be fed. The jobs programs the Dems started never did any good but we still have them. 60 minutes covered that.
Frankly I think tax cuts and tax hikes should require a super-majority to ensure (or hope for) more responibility. There is no simple answer, though. I will admit.
Lee
tax tax tax tax tax….. sooo much money is spent (wasted) on education in my district it’s pathetic. with no accountability. whomever seriously thinks underfunding education is the problem is nuts. “here, son, this $20 will help you with your phonics”. please. cloeindia… “news shows that we are militarily in deep shit”… which news? BBC? ap? try alternate sources. we’re doing pretty good things over there. little digging will prove it.
TJ Jackson
Bush is a loser but trying to make Clinton into anything other than a spendthrift loser is beyond reason. I wonder if the Democrats would support a line item veto? I wonder if they’d support a balanced budget amendment that required the budget to be balanced each year with the penalty that if it weren’t all elected official would be required to leave office and be banned from running for public office again.
S Ty
“news shows that we are militarily in deep shit”… which news? BBC? ap? try alternate sources. we’re doing pretty good things over there. little digging will prove it.
Posted by: Lee on May 3, 2005 04:41 PM
http://www.albasrah.net/#english
scroll down to enter to find the good things Americans are doing that a little digging will prove.
sojourner
Clinton balanced the budget. Something that can’t be said of Bush. Sorry for the inconvenient fact.
Kimmitt
Bush is a loser but trying to make Clinton into anything other than a spendthrift loser is beyond reason.
Could you post some stats on the growth of the Federal budget under Clinton, preferably with comparisons to Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43? Thanks.
KC
Clinton a “spendthrift loser?” It was a combination of him and a Republican Congress–opposing sides–running our government that gave us a balanced budget. If I could put Clinton and that Republican Congress back in place, I’d do it in a heart beat. Unfortunately, Clinton is gone and so are balanced budget conservatives. Now, we have something in place that’s worse–a government that says its going to balance the budget, but spends and cuts taxes like there’s no such thing as an interest rate.
Aaron
Any suggestions from the Dems where we can cut some money?
Headstart? Farm subsidies?
You know, your party can offer up some alternatives if you so desire.
without a decent opppositon, I’m afraid the GOP is morphing.
Mr Furious
TJ-
Um, Clinton entered office with a deficit, left it with a surplus. Some loser.
Line Item Veto? Yeah I think the Dems would support it, Clinton had it (briefly). But, it turns out it’s not up to them…On June 26, 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the line-item veto law, declaring it unconstitutional. In the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Court held the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause; in order to grant the President line item veto a constitutional amendment is needed (according to the majority opinion). [link]
I guess when you’re not full of crap, you’re just ignorant and/or wrong
John Cole
IF i remember correctly, there was only tepid support for the line item veto among moderate Democreats during the Clinton years, and they had vehemently opposed it during the Reagan Bush years for the obvious reasons.
Robert Byrd, who at the time was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was the most opposed to it, also for obvious reasons, and called it a Christmas present when it was struck down.
I have no idea how Democrats would react now, as both branches are Republican, and most of the former Senate moderate Democrats are gone.
Mr Furious
I’m not claiming to remember exactly how that stuff went down — I don’t. But regardless, the line-item veto ain’t coming back, so it’s irrelevant.
Pug
“I wonder if the Democrats would support a line item veto? I wonder if they’d support a balanced budget amendment …”
So 80’s. How could a Republican call for a balanced budget amendment with a straight face? There has to be a point where even politicians are embarassed.
TJ Jackson
Mr. Furious:
Your spin is so blantant it is laughable. Clinton entered office after the cold war and bank crisis had ended leaving him with a surplus no one else except for manybe Grant has ever had. Yet Clinton managed to expand the government every year of his administration and attempted to expand the government into the complete control of the medical sector.
Clinton was not responsible for any surplus having admitted he raised taxes too much and was responsible for the regulatory attacks that helped create one of the largest busts in history.
But of course its easy to forget these undigestible little facts. By the way if one measures the eight years of his administration take a guess if he ran a surplus or a deficit? Again its so easy to misrepresent facts.
Finally Kimmit who can always be depended upon to display his ignorance seeks to tie interest rates to the budget. Strange isn’t it how rates are nowhere near as bad as they were during the Carter years? There is no correlation between the two since interest rates are related to the state of the economy.
But Kimmit is an idiot and economically illiterate, but then I repeat myself.
Rick
Actually, the latter part of the Clinton years proved that we can, indeed, “grow the economy” enough to eliminate the deficit.
The 1990 Bush I record tax hike didn’t do it–despite predictions to the contrary, and neither did the 1993 Clinton (Bush v.1.1) tax increase.
Boom times, whethere in the 60s, 80s or 90s, mean lotsa tax dollars to the Treasury.
Cordially…
blogsy mcblog
When conservatives read about the vastly improved service for much less money that nationalized health care systems provide, how do they feel? Do they accept the undisputed facts and say, “regardless of the benefits, government control of medical care is morally wrong”? Or do they dispute the undipsutable facts and hope that nobody notices the benefits that national health care systems bring? Just curious…
Rick
When conservatives read about the vastly improved service for much less money that nationalized health care systems provide…
Where? Where? UK? Canada? Cuba?
The point is, please serve up some undisputed facts.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
Ezra Klein‘s been doing some good stuff on the various health systems in Japan, France, Canada, Germany, and the UK. I think he finished up a week or two ago, check the archives. We already spend way more money per capita than any of them do (usually about twice as much), so I think we can put together a system which maintains our current strengths (trauma, innovation, truly superb care for those who can afford it) and import some of their strengths (universality, preventive care, and good care for everyone).
It was a combination of him and a Republican Congress–opposing sides–running our government that gave us a balanced budget.
If you look at the numbers at the CBO, you’ll find that the Federal budget declined about as quickly during the first two years of Clinton’s terms (with a fully Democratic Congress) as during the latter six. The difference is that Clinton managed to get his tax increase through without a single Republican vote; that increase is what made it possible for us to actually balance the budget.
I really don’t find the argument that the Republicans restrained spending to be particularly compelling, except in the case of nationalized health care, which was not fully supported by Clinton’s own Party. Clinton’s budget success was about Clinton. He believed the principles behind Rubinomics, and it turned out they worked.
Rick
OK, it’s been a couple hours now. How about some “undisputed opinions” and cherished myths? I figure that’s closer to what you mean.
Cordially…
blogsy mcblog
Rick, you obviously delight in taking the second course of action; disputing undisputed facts. That is a right wing ploy that has worked for twenty years; attack undisputed facts so there are no facts for public discourse.
Let’s see where the OECD ranks our system compared to Canada; Canada: 30th Us: 37th
;
US’s administrative costs are 300% higher per capita than Canada’s;
As of 2002, the US spent 14.5% of its GDP on health care while canada spent 9.6%.
Everyone is covered in Canada; we leave 42 million people uninsured.
Canadians have more doctor visits per capita, spend more time in the hopsital, and have drastically cheaper prescription medicine than Americans.
United States has a lower waiting period for elective surgeries.
That’s the basic comparison; I could keep going, but unless you are a ideologue, you will admit that our system provides less units of health for a much higher cost than the health care system of other western democracies.
John Cole
IF it matters, I am of the basic opinin that some form of nationalized healthcare is going to happen regardless. It is the trend, and it appears that big businesses are warming to the idea. When they figure out a way to jettison their own health benefits in favor of the government picking up the tab, they will get behind nationalized health care right quick.
Watch.
Blogsy McBlog
I agree with your comment, John. Do you oppose it, support it, or not really care?
Kimmitt
John’s right — the trick is to turn nationalized health care into an actual program, instead of another corporate welfare money hole.
John Cole
Generally, I oppose it, but I do find it hard to reconcile the vast amount of money spent on health care with large gaps in coverage still occurring.
Regardless, it is immaterial what I think. It is going to happen- the GM rumblings are just the start, and I see the writing on the wall. A lot of people simply fail to remember that many inbig business were initially luke-warm in favor if the Clinton plan, and even sat down with them for a period of months before it became clear the majority of the public was souring on it.
At any rate, if it happens, we will probably get the worst of both worlds- a nationalized health care system and no increase in salary or increase in corporate taxesd to offset the benefits they no longer have to provide. The ywill be more than happy to simply cut their programs and push everyone off on the government.
Not faulting them, just pointing out that corporate America has a pretty steady track record in regard to ‘externalities.’ Corporations, after all, are amoral.
Kimmitt
Yet Clinton managed to expand the government every year of his administration
I’m sorry, but you are completely wrong about this.
Federal budget as percentage of GDP, source CBO.
1992 22.1
1993 21.4
1994 21.0
1995 20.7
1996 20.3
1997 19.6
1998 19.2
1999 18.6
2000 18.4
Clinton clearly reduced the footprint of the Federal government every year he was in office.
blogsy mcblog
Interesting. I have heard others express this point, and it seems logical. Before the drug (company) benefit, I had doubts about whether this kind of thing would fly with the current administration, but now…
Rick
We indeed spend more on health care, for any number of factors. One of them is that our medicine and research is far more advanced. Another is the defensive medicine practice to CYA because of our litigiousness.
The fact remains that the U.S. system has delivered far more “goods” than the rationed, unresponsive systems in other nations. If you’ve been in the military, you’ve experience a health care system resembling the NHS in the UK, lets say.
Gimme Kaiser Permanante any time.
I think before undertaking this take over of one of Amurika’s best features, we ought to nationalize the lawyers, in order to ration lawsuits, and cover everyone’s needs for wills, probate, etc.
I much prefer that experiment.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
The fact remains that the U.S. system has delivered far more “goods” than the rationed, unresponsive systems in other nations.
Which metrics are you using to make this statement?
Rick
Metrics, schmetrics. Here’s a study: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf
I wasn’t in a PVS during the Hillarycare debate. Heard lots of lamentations, and watched contradictory facts putting the Earth in shadow as they criss-crossed in the broadcast sky.
And it continues. But plainly, we spend more for a bundle of reasons, but one of them is due to more routine employment of expensive diagnostic devices, and more abundent elective surgeries.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
Ah, Cato.
Wherever national health insurance has been tried, rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain.
Not true.
This myth is often supported by reference to two facts: (1) that life expectancy is not much different among the developed countries and (2) that the U.S. infant mortality rate is one of the highest among developed countries. If the United States spends more than other countries, why don
Rick
Ummm…true: http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf
Typical Cato fluff. Start by assuming the conclusion, then throw a bunch of misleading statistics at it.
Never the way things go in the reality-based community, though, is it?
Suffice it to say, nationalized health care tends to wind up with Amtrak/DMV/Post Office efficiencies and compassion. So no thanks; I had my fill in the Navy, and can enjoy a couple VA years of it about a decade from now, right before I qualify for Medicare.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
You’ve obviously never dealt with the bureaucracy of an HMO. Enjoy the VA years while they last, seriously.