Discussion:
OT: Bush spends more than LBJ
(too old to reply)
baitergate
2005-09-23 22:25:11 UTC
Permalink
The American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy has calculated that
George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending
in his first term by 35.1 percent.

To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ--the Texas legend who created the
Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War--only
boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between
Bush and LBJ will only grow. De Rugy notes that the final outlays for
fiscal year 2005 (the last budget signed in Bush's first term) aren't in
yet. As a result, she has to use mid-session review numbers, which are
invariably smaller than the final amounts. And, she says, the number for
FY2005 "does not take under consideration the numerous supplemental passed
this year, and the new spending triggered by the Katrina disaster."

----------

Of course, the big difference between Bush's spending and the Democrats, is
that Bush just borrows the money.
John Wheaton
2005-09-23 22:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by baitergate
The American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy has calculated that
George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending
in his first term by 35.1 percent.
To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ--the Texas legend who created the
Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War--only
boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between
Bush and LBJ will only grow.
Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor?
Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn't care about the
poor?

Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor...

See ya,
John
Zootwoman
2005-09-23 23:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor?
Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn't care about the
poor?
Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor...
See ya,
John
excuse me - me???? Lefties Love LBJ? We are rewriting history these
days aren't we?

"Hey Hey LBJ
How many kids did you kill today?"

http://members.tripod.com/~JeanneAnn/sixties.html

That's politics for ya!!!
Rick N. Backer
2005-09-23 23:26:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:38:07 -0700, "John Wheaton"
Post by John Wheaton
Post by baitergate
The American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy has calculated that
George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending
in his first term by 35.1 percent.
To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ--the Texas legend who created the
Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War--only
boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between
Bush and LBJ will only grow.
Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor?
Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn't care about the
poor?
Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor...
See ya,
John
Who said we all loved LBJ. I was protesting America's actions in
Vietnam at the time. I don't think I'd call that loving LBJ.
Although, I do think his Great Society was a better offering than
anything Bush and his people have put on the plate.

Ken Wilson
Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,
Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the
Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)
and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars)
Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Bruce Morgen
2005-09-23 23:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Post by baitergate
The American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy has calculated that
George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending
in his first term by 35.1 percent.
To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ--the Texas legend who created the
Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War--only
boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between
Bush and LBJ will only grow.
Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor?
Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn't care about the
poor?
Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor...
Horse puckey. He hasn't
even funded the misbegotten
"No Child Left Behind"
initiative," the "Social
Programs" centerpiece of
his first campaign -- it's
essentially an unfunded
mandate. Maybe you're
referring to "Social
Programs" for political
cronies and corporate
welfare for the industries
that funded his campaign.

Then there's the most costly
of his "Social Programs,"
permanent tax breaks for the
already-prosperous. You're
correct, John, Dumber'nyuh
is a hideously profligate
spender on "Social Programs"
-- for those who don't need
them! Meanwhile, poverty
rates continue to rise and
the middle class continues
to "downsize."




................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
Post by John Wheaton
Post by baitergate
at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
John Wheaton
2005-09-23 23:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Morgen
Bush has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor...
Horse puckey.
This source will drive'n crazy, but try to refute the facts;

"As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't
even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2
percent of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget
kicked 2 percent more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329
billion. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement
programs and education than any president in history. What say you, Jesse
and Howard?

For a country that is often accused by left-wing loons of not caring about
the poor, we are certainly putting up a good front. In 2006, almost $368
billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support
assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned
income tax credits, welfare payments, child-care payments, foster care and
adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. The
truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing the
tightest safety net in history for the poor. And our private charitable
donations rank first in the world as well.

So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the "America ignores
the poor" bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and
could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The
race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply
cannot support themselves no matter what society does. The New Testament
states it clearly: "the poor, they will always be with us." But America
provides more opportunity for more people than anywhere else on the planet."
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=bor
play on
2005-09-23 23:57:50 UTC
Permalink
He may be spending more, but the bucks are ending up in his crony's
pockets. Poverty increased under Bush first term.

The other difference is that Clinton actually had the money to pay for
his programs... Bush just borrows from China. You think it's sound
fiscal policy I guess. No surprise there, Kool-aid drinker.
John Wheaton
2005-09-24 00:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by play on
He may be spending more, but the bucks are ending up in his crony's
pockets.
Bull shit. The money goes to indigent, but why consider facts!
Post by play on
Poverty increased under Bush first term.
That also neglects to include the Dot.Com bubble that Clinton rode, and the
Dot.Com Burst that left Bush to inherit a collapsing economy, but why
consider facts!

That also neglects to include the millions of jobs that were lost after
9/11, remember the airlines alone laid-off close to a million, but why
consider facts!
Post by play on
No surprise there, Kool-aid drinker.
Ah now that is a snappy retort to posting factual information. The "kool aid
drinkers" are the Lefty Lemmings you MORON. Where did the term come from? Do
you even know? It was Lefties Lemmings from San Francisco that were Jim
Jones followers, but again, why let facts influence your posts!

See ya,
John
Rick N. Backer
2005-09-24 00:49:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:11:11 -0700, "John Wheaton"
Post by John Wheaton
Post by play on
He may be spending more, but the bucks are ending up in his crony's
pockets.
Bull shit. The money goes to indigent, but why consider facts!
Post by play on
Poverty increased under Bush first term.
That also neglects to include the Dot.Com bubble that Clinton rode, and the
Dot.Com Burst that left Bush to inherit a collapsing economy, but why
consider facts!
That's not Clinton's fault. That's brain dead investors putting their
money in lots of vapour ware and virtual product.
Post by John Wheaton
That also neglects to include the millions of jobs that were lost after
9/11, remember the airlines alone laid-off close to a million, but why
consider facts!
Post by play on
No surprise there, Kool-aid drinker.
Ah now that is a snappy retort to posting factual information. The "kool aid
drinkers" are the Lefty Lemmings you MORON. Where did the term come from? Do
you even know? It was Lefties Lemmings from San Francisco that were Jim
Jones followers, but again, why let facts influence your posts!
They might if you had any facts to bring to the table. Fucking
apologist.

Ken Wilson
Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,
Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the
Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)
and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars)
Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Zootwoman
2005-09-24 02:59:10 UTC
Permalink
comparing percentages doesn't mean much if you don't also talke about
the actual number. What's 50% of 100,000? What's 5% of 1,000,000,000?
Which is more
play on
2005-09-24 04:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Actually percentages are a more fair comparison, since we are dealing
with 35 years of inflation and population increase, as well as an
increase in the size of the economy.
John Wheaton
2005-09-24 06:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zootwoman
comparing percentages doesn't mean much if you don't also talke about
the actual number. What's 50% of 100,000? What's 5% of 1,000,000,000?
Which is more
As Lincoln said," When you are considered a fool, you are wiserer to keep
quiet, than speak up and remove all doubt."

Read the post again. Bush has spent more in raw dollars, AND HE SPENDS A
HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF government spending as well. Clinton spent 12%, Bush
spent 2% MORE THAN CLINTON, so he spent 14% on Poverty, and Welfare
Programs.

Bye,
John
play on
2005-09-23 23:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Where did you get "love LBJ" from that post? They blame him for
Vietnam...

Your myopic partisan prejudice is showing again... as usual.
John Wheaton
2005-09-23 23:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by play on
Where did you get "love LBJ" from that post? They blame him for
Vietnam...
Your myopic partisan prejudice is showing again... as usual.
You are one of the many Lefty Lemmings that has raved about LBJ's Great
Society program. Remember that was the second coming for you folks.

That aside, my previous post compares Clinton & Bush's spending on the poor.
Again Bush is also the greatest spender in history where programs for the
poor is concerned, both in raw dollars, and in percent of geovernment
spending. I'm sure you guys will still bitch, why let facts influence your
rants.

See ya,
John
play on
2005-09-24 00:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Excuse me, your lying asshole-ness. Please quote any post where I
"raved" about LBJ.

In fact at the time I joined millions of other patriotic Americans to
protest the Vietnam war. We were correct on Vietnam being a colossal
waste of lives and money, and history will show we are correct about
Iraq too.
SoK66
2005-09-24 00:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wheaton
Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn't care about the
poor? Bush has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor...>
As of their fifth year in office, compared to Clinton, Bush has spent DOUBLE
the amount of money Clinton did. Better yet, the so-called "poverty rate" in
FAt Boy Billy Clinton's fith year in office was 13.7%, In Bush's it is
12.7%...stick it up your commie keesters, moonbats, Bush is beating you at
your own "spend it" game.
play on
2005-09-24 00:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Yo, bubble brain. By the end of Clinton's term (that would be the 8th
year, in case you can't do the math) povery was down to 11%.

At any rate, with his usual skill, "Lying John" has tried to reframe
the discussion away from discretionary non-military spending, to
spending on poverty. The original post wasn't about that. It was
about total spending... ie pork.
John Wheaton
2005-09-24 00:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by play on
At any rate, with his usual skill, "Lying John"
FUCK YOU.

You regularly LIE in this ng and you have NEVER been seen me do it. Not
once, not ever. The Lefty Lemming would be crowing for months if that ever
happned. You need to worry about it, since IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

has tried to reframe
Post by play on
the discussion away from discretionary non-military spending,
Bull Shit on that too! I have posted a number of times that I have a problem
with this free spending administration, but again, why let facts influence
your posts!

to
Post by play on
spending on poverty.
I put that out there because the Lefty Lemming are continualy railing about
how Bush hates the poor, and he is going to add new programs on the backs of
the poor, and that is like most Lefty rants, it is dishonest, and untrue.

The original post wasn't about that. It was
Post by play on
about total spending... ie pork.
And again, I have frequently posted again the amount of spending that is
going on. Once again, you have been dishonest, but at least you are
consistant!

See ya,
John
play on
2005-09-24 04:21:11 UTC
Permalink
OK liar, I noticed you were unable to post anything where I said I
"loved" LBJ, as per your lying assertion. So you get a big fat 0 for
that rebuttal. Liar. And this particular thread was about total
discretionary spending, not poverty programs. I'm not talking about
what you posted elswhere.

Bush cares about poor folks? And pigs have wings. Check the poverty
statistics in Texas over the course of the Bush tenure as governer.
And the status of public education in Texas after his "policies" were
applied.
John Wheaton
2005-09-24 06:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by play on
OK liar, I noticed you were unable to post anything where I said I
"loved" LBJ, as per your lying assertion. So you get a big fat 0 for
that rebuttal. Liar.
Once again, your ignorance is appalling. YOU are one of many that had
trumpeted LBJ's Great Society, so in that capacity, WHICH IS THE ONE that I
referenced. I was VERY ACCURATE. You FUCKING MORON.

Lying is what YOU do when you intentionally post something you KNOW to be
UNTRUE. As usual what I posted was TRUE and ACCURATE.

Check previous posts from YOU, and your Liberal Lemming Friends.

And this particular thread was about total
Post by play on
discretionary spending, not poverty programs.
Once again, you are being DISHONEST. I not only acknowledged that Bush is
the biggest spender of ALL Time, I also have posted that NUMEROUS TIMES, and
I have also POSTED NUMEROUS times that I do NOT LIKE his Spending, but why
would you ever be truthful or accurate, especially when you are mentioning
me. Unfortunate for you, I REMEMBER What I post, and I remember what YOU
post, and EVERYONE that reads this ng remembers too .

I'm not talking about
Post by play on
what you posted elswhere.
You don't have to since I left no doubt that I think that he spends TOO
FUCKING MUCH, and I made that clear in THIS THREAD you MORON.
Post by play on
Bush cares about poor folks?
He has spent MORE in raw dollars that Clinton, and more in percentage of
government expendatures.
Post by play on
And pigs have wings
I posted the facts you MORON, but you don't acknowledge that fact stuff. It
might influence your rants and you wouldn't be able to post the MORONIC
things that you do.

Bye,
John
Rick N. Backer
2005-09-24 00:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SoK66
Post by John Wheaton
Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn't care about the
poor? Bush has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor...>
As of their fifth year in office, compared to Clinton, Bush has spent DOUBLE
the amount of money Clinton did. Better yet, the so-called "poverty rate" in
FAt Boy Billy Clinton's fith year in office was 13.7%, In Bush's it is
12.7%...stick it up your commie keesters, moonbats, Bush is beating you at
your own "spend it" game.
You have a link to these numbers somewhere where they can be verified?

Ken Wilson
Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,
Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the
Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)
and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars)
Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
play on
2005-09-24 04:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by SoK66
As of their fifth year in office, compared to Clinton, Bush has spent DOUBLE
the amount of money Clinton did. Better yet, the so-called "poverty rate" in
FAt Boy Billy Clinton's fith year in office was 13.7%, In Bush's it is
12.7%...stick it up your commie keesters, moonbats, Bush is beating you at
your own "spend it" game.
The funny thing is, he hates it when "liberals" spend money, but when
Bush spends more, it's cool and he brags about it???

Suck66, a man who stands by his principles...
Zootwoman
2005-09-24 04:30:59 UTC
Permalink
The right-wing American Enterprise Institute takes a look at
presidential spending, both discretionary and total, and determines
determines that Reagan was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Par
for the course for that organization. But in an unexplored corner of
their numbers we find that -- drum roll please -- Bush is an
LBJ-caliber spendthrift.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Thing is, that report is a few months ago and included incomplete data
and guesses for Bush's 2004 budget. Well, turns out that once the final
numbers came in, Bush amazingly clocked in above LBJ.

Reason's Nick Gillespie got the updated numbers, and it looks like the
30.2 percent that AEI projected for Bush's first term was, well,
optimistic. (Reason is a libertarian magazine).

The Bush apologists like to point to the War on Terror to justify
Bush's lack of budget control. But the graph above helpfully breaks out
the non-defense discretionary spending, and it's ugly. That's a 25.3
percent increase over Clinton's last budget.

And that's not even including the hundreds of billions of dollars
pissed away in Iraq. His second term, with the hurricane
reconstructions, doesn't promise to fare much better. Congressional
Republicans aren't about to surrender their pork for the nation's
greater good. And Bush will continue to do nothing about the runaway
spending, as he's done for the last four years and counting


Those figures come by way of the American Enterprise Institute's
Veronique de Rugy, who has calculated that George W. Bush has boosted
total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending in his first term by
35.1 percent. To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ--the Texas
legend who created the Great Society and, for all intents and purposes,
the Vietnam War--only boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent.
What's more, the gap between Bush and LBJ will only grow. De Rugy notes
that the final outlays for fiscal year 2005 (the last budget signed in
Bush's first term) aren't in yet. As a result, she has to use
mid-session review numbers, which are invariably smaller than the final
amounts. And, she says, the number for FY2005 "does not take under
consideration the numerous supplemental passed this year, and the new
spending triggered by the Katrina disaster."

It's a wonder that any fiscal conservatives still stick by Bush.
play on
2005-09-24 05:02:50 UTC
Permalink
His numbers are right... but he takes the Clinton numbers from the
first year of Clinton's second term, rather than from the end of the
term. It's a typically misleading righty talking point that he cribbed
from somewhere. He's a parrot.
John Wheaton
2005-09-24 06:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by play on
His numbers are right...
BINGO you MORON. It's easy since I am ALWAYS honest, and I stick to the
FACTS.
Post by play on
He's a parrot.
Yea, horrible thought. I repeat the FACTS you MORON, instead of making
things up as I go along like YOU do.

Time for you Lefty Lemmings to break out the Kool-Aid.

Bye,
John
play on
2005-09-26 00:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Conveniently you apparently didn't read my full post. Making you a
liar once again. His numbers were right, but he cut them off BEFORE the
end of Clinton's 2nd term.

Here is the full deal:

Historical Poverty Tables (4.00 / 2)

Percent of families below poverty level

2004 11.0
2003 10.8
2002 10.4
2001 9.9
2000 9.6
1999 10.3
1998 11.2
1997 11.6
1996 12.2
1995 12.3
1994 13.1
1993 13.6
1992 13.3
1991 12.8
1990 12.0

Notice how after reaching a new low in 2000 the percentages go up again
after Bush takes office.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

See ya, (wouldn't wanna be ya)
John Wheaton
2005-09-26 02:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by play on
Notice how after reaching a new low in 2000 the percentages go up again
after Bush takes office.
As we have gone over in previous threads,

1) While Clinton got to ride the Dot.Com bubble. That as you KNOW is a fact.

2) Clinton handed Bush a collapsing economy when the Dot.Com bubble burst.
That as you KNOW is a fact.

3) Seven months after President Bush was sworn in, MILLIONS lost their jobs
because of 9/11. There were close to a million in the Airline Industry
alone. That as you KNOW is a fact.

See ya,
John
Rick N. Backer
2005-09-26 07:07:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:39:03 -0700, "John Wheaton"
Post by John Wheaton
Post by play on
Notice how after reaching a new low in 2000 the percentages go up again
after Bush takes office.
As we have gone over in previous threads,
1) While Clinton got to ride the Dot.Com bubble. That as you KNOW is a fact.
2) Clinton handed Bush a collapsing economy when the Dot.Com bubble burst.
That as you KNOW is a fact.
3) Seven months after President Bush was sworn in, MILLIONS lost their jobs
because of 9/11. There were close to a million in the Airline Industry
alone. That as you KNOW is a fact.
See ya,
John
Apologist
Ken Wilson

Amer. Dlx. Tele, Gary Moore LP, LP DC Classic w/P90s,
Jeff Beck Strat, Morgan OM Acoustic,
Rick 360/12, Std. Strat (MIM), Mesa 100 Nomad,
Mesa F-30

"Goodnight Andre Jute, wherever you are. Jesus loves you."

Loading...