Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Obushma Spending Record
We saw earlier today here at Hit and Run the hideous lineaments of President George W. Bush's spending record. The Heritage Foundation's blog outlines the ways Obama is shaping up as more of the same, and then some. Lowlights:
- President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
- President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
- President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
- President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
- President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
- President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
- President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
mike farmer|3.17.09 @ 9:19PM|#
Yes, government should ashamed of the part they play in private-sector scandals and scams.
Suki|3.17.09 @ 9:32PM|#
We saw earlier today here at Hit and Run the hideous lineaments of President George W. Bush's spending record.
The writer of that post said the same thing you are saying.
However, the knowledgable commentators pointed out thet the
president is no longer in control of spending, the Congress
controls that.
As much as one may not like former President Bush, it would be
proper to phrase things like this correctly. "The Bush era Congress
spent like drunken sailors," or something like that.
Thank you to the commentators on the thread who pointed out the
differences in fiscal issues pre and post budget acts of the 1970's
(do I have the era right?).
Suki|3.17.09 @ 9:36PM|#
Right here in this post, perhaps I can help you a bit.
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
The Congress, during the Bush Administration,
expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through
2008.
President Obama would wish to add another $1
trillion.
See? Pretty easy.
Josh|3.17.09 @ 9:49PM|#
Bush could be absolved from any responsibility had these budgets been passed over his veto. But he signed them, thus owns responsibility for this mess just like Congress does.
|3.17.09 @ 9:50PM|#
Maybe I missed something. That war of choice in 2003 that it likely to cost over a trillion when all is said and done. Did Heritage miss that? Or is it just other instances of their general douchebaggery that I am thinking of. Cause that one-trillion dollar war's a real bitch. Anti-poverty, education, roads and bridges, etc. We might see some of those benefits eventually. The war of choice, not so much.
Suki|3.17.09 @ 9:53PM|#
Bush could be absolved from any responsibility had these
budgets been passed over his veto. But he signed them, thus owns
responsibility for this mess just like Congress does.
Just like all of the court convictions that he did not pardon?
Anonymous|3.17.09 @ 10:08PM|#
Socialism and corporate control? I don't know, he has big ears. But Aldoph is articulate.
Fluffy|3.17.09 @ 10:10PM|#
I think it's important to note that one reason Obama's spending
orgy is so obscene is that Bush moved the goalposts.
His actions disarmed and discredited the GOP and conservatives in
general on issues of spending and fiscal responsibility. Bush moved
the spending debate and the deficit debate forcibly into the
trillions.
Bush's series of bailouts and interventions also appear to have
completely removed the brakes from the federal government's
willingness to directly intervene in the private sector economy,
and we are now lurching about, "pragmatically" considering some new
extreme course of action literally every week. Since Bush was
willing to consider nationalizing large sectors of the economy,
that's now the new "conservative" - and so it's not really that
surprising to see members of Congress openly considering crafting
tax bills designed to effectively "proscribe" and expropriate
named individuals.
After Bush, there is almost nothing that's beyond the federal
government's contemplation. And this is what us "deranged" Bush
haters warned you mofos of at the time.
Fluffy|3.17.09 @ 10:12PM|#
Just like all of the court convictions that he did not
pardon?
Right, because Bush's level of involvement in getting No Child Left
Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit is comparable to
his level of involvement in your average federal court
conviction.
There is literally no lunacy that you Bush fellators won't permit
yourselves, is there?
|3.17.09 @ 10:26PM|#
However, the knowledgable commentators pointed out thet the
president is no longer in control of spending, the Congress
controls that.
Bullshit. The president can veto spending. It's harder to pass a
spending bill with a 2/3 override in both chambers than 50.1% 0f
the House and 60% of the Senate.
Bush almost never wielded the veto pen.
And, if you're someone like Ron Paul, you could refuse to spend
money on veto-overriden stuff on the basis that it is
unconstitutional. Now that would take guts, and probably get you
impeached, but to say the president doesn't control spending is
nonsense. They just don't WANT to do so.
Anonymous|3.17.09 @ 10:30PM|#
So it should be that much easier to call socialists what they are, when they're that far left of big-government not-conservative Bush... not that there's anything wrong with that, since I don't want to be convicted of hate speech for being racist.
Orange Line Special|3.17.09 @ 10:41PM|#
So, basically, what Reason is saying is that we're living in
something approaching a one-party state. And, Reason is saying that
they aren't willing to do much about it except whine, make stupid
videos, and keep replaying those stupid videos over and over. And,
Reason is implicitly saying that they don't even have what it takes
to make this list.
Got it, thanks.
Kolohe|3.17.09 @ 10:54PM|#
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the
public debt through 2008.
It's actually a little more as the heritage source I think uses
fiscal years and thus disregards most of the first round of TARP
and other things the Fed did to have an unprecedented balance sheet
last fall. (Heritage figure is 5.8 trillion for the 2008 debt #;
the treas website has 6.4 trillion for the end of the calender year
and 5.8 tril for the FY)
And of course the whole calc disregards social security /
medicare.
minoa13|3.17.09 @ 10:56PM|#
Tilted the tax system to shift the burden to the Rich? Or reduced the rates on the rich, but the rich were so prosperous they paid more in absolute terms, but less in %. More prosperous doing what? oh yeah, inflating a credit bubble, taking commissions and bonuses, then when it collapsed, taking bailouts and bonuses)
Anonymous|3.17.09 @ 11:33PM|#
The "same" "meme" is insipid.
Sure, they're going to destroy the nation in the same way -- by
creating a totalitarian utopia. Most voters desire a
totalitarian utopia, you fucking idiot. We all know
they're wrong. The difference between us and the oligarchy, so to
speak, is that we think everybody else should have exactly what
they want as individuals; they think they can use populism to
destroy the dissenters.
Grow some testicles.
|3.17.09 @ 11:53PM|#
Well, all this spending is going to lead us to utopia, right? No
matter who does the spending, right? So what's it matter if we all
have a pony? Who cares if we'll eventually have to pay for it? It's
a pony!
All of this "He did it!" "No! He did it!" bullshit isn't going to
get any of us anywhere. Lets all just agree that this absurd
spending binge isn't going to solve anything, no matter who or when
it started, because it doesn't really matter at all anymore. And
just because someone started it, doesn't mean it's okay for it to
continue. That's a ridiculous argument.
Adding to our debt in this manner can lead to nothing good.
economist|3.18.09 @ 12:22AM|#
Welcome to the middle of the 16-year-assrape fest. We're sorry you missed the first half, but the real party starts in the second half. And, maybe if we get drunk enough, it can last twenty-four years. You brought lube, right?
Lefiti|3.18.09 @ 12:24AM|#
I have nothing better to do than go online late at night and tell people that they are irrelevant and that they suck. I'm going to go get drunk and jerk off to Obama's inauguration speech now.
Lefiti\'s Doctor|3.18.09 @ 12:59AM|#
It appears that poor Lefiti stimulated himself to death while watching his recording of Barack Obama's inauguration speech. We found his stash of methamphetamine and a stained Obama poster near his bed.
economist|3.18.09 @ 1:01AM|#
TallDave,
Obama has not yet expanded the government as much as Bush did. But
he's off to a roaring start, and I have no doubt that at the end
your prediction will come true.
I hate it when TallDave is right.
|3.18.09 @ 1:18AM|#
And this is what us "deranged" Bush haters warned you mofos of at the time.
Actually, what I remember most about the deranged Bush haters is
that they would foam at the mouth about "nukular" and cowboy hats
and crap like that. I didn't hear too much whining from the
professional whiner class about expanding the government's role in
education, prescription drugs, financial markets, etc. Yeah, you
did manage to utter some indignations about the civil liberties,
but I suspect most of it was a kneejerk reaction.
</|3.18.09 @ 1:24AM|#
Obama has not yet expanded the government as much as Bush did.
Fucking idiots! The barbed cock of satan moves so slowly you can
hardly feel the blood loss. Give the man-beast at least six months
to get up to speed, and then fill out the lube requisition, if you
have the strength.
|3.18.09 @ 1:34AM|#
Sure, they're going to destroy the nation in the same way --
by creating a totalitarian utopia.
That's "totalitarian dystopia". There's nothing "eu" about
totalitarianism -- unless you're the one calling the shots.
Anonymous|3.18.09 @ 1:48AM|#
I meant it's their vision is of "utopia," even though by
definition utopia becomes dystopia by its impossible nature, which
is recognized in the term's etymology and the very literature of
its origin.
In fact, Leftists' use of the word itself betrays their impure
motives. It's akin to criminalizing flatulance to protect unicorns:
even if everyone were to agree that unicorns would be harmed by it
if they were to exist, they don't exist. I hoped that was obvious,
but I guess that's considered "lost knowledge" to academics.
jtuf|3.18.09 @ 5:21AM|#
Ah, Demoratic leadership, just like Republican leadership but with 20% more of George Bush's policies.
|3.18.09 @ 5:37AM|#
As long as the proles can fuck and eat all they want, they're not going to care.
|3.18.09 @ 6:14AM|#
Heh, I said we'd miss Bush's relatively tame expansion of
gov't.
"Relatively tame"?!? Are you fucking serious? Just because Obama is
set to expand it even more doesn't reduce how much Bush did it.
Nice try, Dave. This is like saying getting raped by 3 guys is
relatively tame compared to being raped by 6.
How people like you can defend Bush is so beyond my understanding
that you might as well be an alien.
|3.18.09 @ 7:42AM|#
I think it's important to note that one reason Obama's
spending orgy is so obscene is that Bush moved the
goalposts.
More performance art from Obamatrons desperately seeking to
displace blame and shame onto Bush. Good stuff, Fluffy. I look
forward to more mental contortions. Bush-blame is a rapidly
depreciating asset, though - better use it while you can.
TofuSushi|3.18.09 @ 8:23AM|#
Thi is shameful, blaming the Bush failures on Obama. Ed is
right, Obama inherited these problems and now has to clean up the
mess with more money.
At least the right people are in charge now.
idiotface|3.18.09 @ 9:14AM|#
RC Dean and Tall Dave, are you kidding?
I will repeat the programs ($$$) which Bush initiated: No Child
Left Behind, Prescription Drug Benefit, TARP, Airline and Insurance
Company bailouts (post 9/11) and the initial economic stimulus. Not
to mention the justified, but easily questionable TSA, Dept of
Homeland Security and the Iraq war. What part of big
spender don't you understand?
|3.18.09 @ 10:05AM|#
If Republicans had any concept of how to manage a budget the current government wouldn't have to be spending so much money to rescue the country from financial collapse.
|3.18.09 @ 10:17AM|#
Let's see if I have this correct: it's wrong to point out that Obama inherited an economy in meltdown. But Clinton was to blame for 9/11, right?
|3.18.09 @ 10:24AM|#
What part of big spender don't you understand?
I understand it just fine, and despise Bush and Republican
Congress's accordingly.
I also understand just fine that Obama has already increased, in
just a few months, baseline spending commitments almost as much as
Bush did in eight years. Of course, I count most of the "stimulus"
bill as a baseline spending commitment. Because it is.
|3.18.09 @ 1:48PM|#
@fluffy -
Brandybuck beat me to it - but you seem to be the deranged one as
your post seems to blame Obama's massive spending bills on Bush.
Now that's deranged.
@minoa13 -
During the Bush tax cuts, the percentage of total money the highest
income earners paid increased. Meaning, and I can't find the
numbers right now - but it was something like the top 1% paid 28%
of all taxes before Bush, but paid 30% of all taxes after
Bush.
So their burden increased.
Simply because you don't believe something does not mean it's not
true.
zoltan|3.18.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Fluffy didn't say Obama's massive spending bills were Bush's
fault. S/he was saying Bush's financial idiocy will result in and
has resulted in the next president acting like the next drunken
sailor with the purse strings. Bush moronically spent our country
in the ground with a trillion-dollar war and a symbiotic
relationship with Congress (you give me money for killing brown
people and I'll let you have all the farm, housing, education,
healthcare, and whatever else bullshit that you want). That is
truly the evil beast Bush created and that Obama is running with.
Though now he doesn't even have to haggle anymore, since everyone
is used to Congress spending like idiots for the last eight years
with the President looking away heroically. Thanks, Bush. Thanks,
Obama. You assholes have ruined and will continue to ruin this
country with your inane spending and lack of responsibility.
But I forgot that all the Bush fellators like RC Dean, John,
TallDave, etc. think if you criticize him for something it's
automatically BDS. I mean, with his dick in your mouth and your
hands on his asscheeks, it's difficult to get a grip on anything
else.
Anonymous|3.18.09 @ 5:34PM|#
Bush's financial idiocy
Of course, Obama's just being dragged by the nose by the
Democrat-stuffed Congress.
J.P.|3.18.09 @ 10:53PM|#
My "Impeach Obama" sticker just joined my "Impeach Bush" sticker
on the bumper.
What are the odds we get two bumbling idiots in a row? And, what
are the odds we get a nymphomaniac followed by two bumbling
idiots...
|3.23.09 @ 6:01PM|#
What I can't understand is what sort of moron would report numbers from the Heritage Foundation as if they were a reliable source.
Fascist Nation|3.23.09 @ 8:11PM|#
Thanks for pulling together that A-B list. I am sick of Republicans wanting to bash Obama -- who deserves it -- but want to ignore or defend not just Bush, but twelve years of Republican control of the purse strings, including six under Bush. Add no win wars to the debt and well, it isn't pretty, but somebody gets the blame. All you mothers!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245