Cato Institute: "Conservative" Bush Spends More than "Liberal" Presidents

Bush is losing the libertarian vote. Drip, drip, drip. That's the sound of a one term President(sic).

Cato Institute: "Conservative" Bush Spends More than "Liberal" Presidents Clinton, Carter

"...But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle..."

And I don't think that any of us can complain about govt spending. :P

And just who did they vote for in 2000? Perot? Was it "big government" Gore or "little government" Bush? Or maybe they staid home and knitted. Then there's the question of good government spending (health care, environmental clean-up) or bad (subsidies to big corporations). There are self-professed libertarian Republicans who HATE big government and big government spending and they are coming to detest Bush.

Also, check this out...

TomPaine.com: Reactionary Distinctions

libertarian Republicans are different from REAL, DIEHARD libertarians. I am a former member of the Libertarian party as well as a member of the Democratic party, and you may be completely unaware of this, but the Libertarians had a presidential candidate in 2000. His name was Harry Browne. He was not a republican. I don't think you know about libertarianism at all, you throw the word around like it's nothing.

And actually understand what libertarianism is. Listen to what people you respect describe it as. Then divorce yourself from what they say and read as much as you possibly can about it.

If you'd like links, I would be happy to supply them to you. But for chrissakes, don't listen to semi-literate charlatans like those who seek only to bolster their own egos at the expense of principle.

Libetarians, either small L or big L, have detested Bush and others like him since before he was born.

Read. Think. Learn.

several pukes at work who have become libertarians under Bush's watch

good for them

better for us ;)

its a damn site more significant to Joe On-the fence than Nigerian uranium ever will be. Its his wallet and usually a slam against Dems.

Best to make use of this.

This is the only issue about which they will not critize Clinton. They are furious that even without defense spending, government has grown by 12% under Bush.

This is a big talking point we need to keep alive. Bigger government and job loss can defeat the Bush/Rove steamroller machine.

but criticizing Bush of big govt will not fly. All of the candidates have plans to increase the size of govt - just like Bush does - and the voters will laugh their collective asses off.

but criticizing Bush for big govt will not fly. All of the candidates have plans to increase the size of govt - just like Bush does - and the voters will laugh their collective asses off.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956768/posts

I think that this will ultimately result in a "one-term" GWB presidency.

It may not, but perhaps it should.

Just maybe, if we had a DemocRAT president, the Republican House and Senate would start to apply some constraints. They sure as hell aren't as long as they have a president who is "triangulating" and pandering to Teddy Kennedy, et al.

13 posted on 08/01/2003 6:24 PM PDT by jackbill

(via http://www.dailykos.com)

Ya gotta love that...

Any time that a Democratic talking head is on a show, television or radio, he or she should be fully armed with these statistics. The right wing is good at spinning, but these are statistical facts presented by their own team.

He's free from political restraint and media accountability. He can run this country irretrievably into debt just like his own failed business. His father won't be able to pay the bill this time and neither will we if he's allowed to disgrace the office for another four years.

Exhibit A from the Cato Institute noneless

The events of September 11 should have been a wake-up call for transforming U.S. defense planning. Unfortunately and paradoxically, despite the Bush administration's continuation of rhetoric about defense "transformation," those events likely drove the last nail into the coffin of reform.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-442es.html

Massive (military) spending leading to gigantic deficits that required the services of Bill Clinton to straighten out.

Nevertheless, too many people choose to ignore the facts in favor of the traditional Repig "tax and spend Democrats" propaganda.

Should be the new battle cry. Repubs say, "Let the grand kids carry our burden".

It's being spent badly on cronies. These guys are crappy managers. They are swaggering chicken hawks. So Republicans increase spending at 5 to 6 times the rate Democrats do?

why don' the press ask him about this "no bid situtation"

When both the White House and the Capitol are controlled by the same party, there is typically more spending than when we have a divided government. But, the onus falls on the president. Which means he will be a one-termer.

(God, need coffee)