How do republicans explain this

[cool_chick]

How do Republicans, a party which tries to identify its self with 'fiscal conservatives', explain such sizeable increases in non defence discretionary during the Bush admin?

NOTE: You can’t blame it on the war, as it’s non defense spending.

[CamB]

I don't think you'll get too many bites on this one. Most republicans are justifiably a little concerned about the spending habits of Congress and the unwillingness of Bush to veto anything...

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by CamB
I don't think you'll get too many bites on this one. Most republicans are justifiably a little concerned about the spending habits of Congress and the unwillingness of Bush to veto anything...

I hope you're right...

I was figuring most would somehow twist and blame the "liberals" somehow......as usually the case. Issue deflected, problem continues......

I'll open my mind instead and hope you're right. Because if you are, this country stands a chance yet......

[Nathans_Dad]

Um, they don't. Republicans are pissed about the increase in government spending.

[CamB]

Wall Street Journal is getting pretty scathing of Bush, as are the usual right wing opinion pages. Shortly, someone will try and blame the stuff piggybacked into the bills which get passed, although this is crap when you have a majority in Congress and (theoretically) a president with convictions.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
There is no answer.

Bush is a huge spender. He's not a fiscal conservative at all. Now that his numbers are plumetting because of the ridiculous war in Iraq, he's even more hellbent to spend, to try to buy some popularity points.

Bush has been a huge disappointment. He is a decent man, IMO, but a weak man of average intelligence, with weak/confused/non-existent real convictions. This clearly was a job that was well over his head. He's botched his job so badly that he's opened the door for people like Hillary Clinton to run for, and win, the presidency. At which point I will puke.

Signed,

A Lifelong Republican

I fear the choices in '08 will be worse than ever.

[dtw]

Originally posted by CamB
I don't think you'll get too many bites on this one. Most republicans are justifiably a little concerned about the spending habits of Congress and the unwillingness of Bush to veto anything...

dtw (R, North Carolina) saying "Yep".

[turbo6bar]

If a Republican tries to explain, she isn't a Republican.

[RoninLB]

The Rep's took over Congress 12yrs ago with an appealing agenda. They morphed into the traditional hacks that was the Dem's area. Redistricting secured everyone's position in next year's election with maybe 3 or 4 contested races.

Even w/the Rep's extraordinary spending on social spending household wealth has been steadily increasing since the tax cuts. The trade deficit means we're exporting inflation +. Jobs are plenty full and economic velocity is high. There's so much liquidity available that blue collar guys can speculate on housing. Congress passes business restrictions and still the economy keeps bopping along.

It seems that as long as the US is economically stronger than Europe, India, and China the party will keep going. The most serious threat is from a Congress passing trade restrictions or increasing taxes. The Fed Reserve seems to be keeping the $ confidence high, so far.

I watch the 3mo treasury mkt for a heads up. The Discount Rate isn't a leading indicator. It's more of a lagging indicator of what's happening to the 3mo % even thou the Dis R gets all the press.

party hearty while it lasts.

[CamB]

Ron - the Economist has an interesting article that substitutes where you say:

"It seems that as long as the US is economically stronger than Europe, India, and China the party will keep going."

by taking out "economically stronger" and substituting "able to able to borrow from". The author believes that the saving rate of Europe/China/Asia in general is responsible for the continuing low interest rates in the US... and its affect on housing.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by CamB

by taking out "economically stronger" and substituting "able to able to borrow from". The author believes that the saving rate of Europe/China/Asia in general is responsible for the continuing low interest rates in the US... and its affect on housing.

I'm gonna try and find that article.. thx

anyway it seems liquidity without inflation raises all boats around here.

We have politicians that follow social perception concerning eco matters. That's usually anti-business. I hope your's are aligned in believing that the so called "East" is a market worth harvesting. The big East businessman are no way as flexible as your's is, so far. Big action ripples down real fast.

[David]

I keep wondering how Republicans can call themselves conservative when they increase the national debt more than Democrats (data from the whitehouse.gov site):

[Seahawk]

Cool,

I will in no way try and defend the Republican Congress or Bush's complete lack of fiscal responsibility when budgets are passed...budgets that he could and should have vetoed.
However, I think the chart is somewhat misleading. I would have to assume that the "Total Spending Growth" DOES include defense speding and that "Non Defense Discretionary Spending Growth" does not.
I would also like to see what inflation adjustment were based on, but I'll defer.
In the link I provided below, there are excellent break out of discretionary spending, expressed in dollar values and as a percentage of the federal budget. With defense included in Discretionary Spending (DS), the percentage of the total GDP that DS represents is 7.7%. Back out defense spending and the total percentage drops in half.
While I think Bush has been irresponsible, the black line on the chart chart really represents a realatively small increase in the total budget.
Now, Total Spending (TS) is another matter. Most of the budget is mandatory spending. The link below breaks out where most of the increases came from. It is not a pretty story.
My take away is that domestic programs and defence (we WERE on an acquisition holiday in the 90's) lead the way in TS increases.
There's more, but I'll husband for later!

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table7

Go to the top of the page for Table Descriptions

[AFJuvat]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
There is no answer.

Bush is a huge spender. He's not a fiscal conservative at all. Now that his numbers are plumetting because of the ridiculous war in Iraq, he's even more hellbent to spend, to try to buy some popularity points.

Bush has been a huge disappointment. He is a decent man, IMO, but a weak man of average intelligence, with weak/confused/non-existent real convictions. This clearly was a job that was well over his head. He's botched his job so badly that he's opened the door for people like Hillary Clinton to run for, and win, the presidency. At which point I will puke.

Signed,

A Lifelong Republican

I Concur

One problem I have noticed here on both sides is the assumption that all republicans are ultra right wing neo-cons and all dems are flaming liberals.

Don't confuse punditry with political ideology.

AFJ

[M.D. Holloway]

Maybe the republicans had to bail out idiots that spent more efforts and $$$ on casino boats and marinas than levies and an evac execution plan (just to use one example).

[Rodeo]

Not a single attempt at justification, yet this thread has a one star rating ... vast right wing consipracy? Nah, just the "true believers" afraid to announce themselves publicly.

I give this thread five stars ...

[David]

Table 7 seems to show that all descritionary spending has gone up fast under Bush Jr not just defense.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
Maybe the republicans had to bail out idiots that spent more efforts and $$$ on casino boats and marinas than levies and an evac execution plan (just to use one example).

Ahh, I knew someone wouldn't fail me.

I'm presuming you're including this Republican idiot (LA Governor 1996-2004).

Edit: forgot to include this fine link: http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/73.htm It even talks to you!

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Not a single attempt at justification, yet this thread has a one star rating ... vast right wing consipracy? Nah, just the "true believers" afraid to announce themselves publicly.

I give this thread five stars ...

The truth of the matter is, both parties are the same.....and have been for a long time. Some just can't face it...it appears that it is a direct reflection of them or something, which it is not. But it would be responsible to wake up and smell the coffee.....as long as this segment of Amercia does this deflection, this unfounded belief that their party is fiscally responsible when it's not...it's not going to improve...

[Seahawk]

The interesting point to be made here is that there is no such thing as a zero sum analysis where the federal budget is concerned. Discretionary spending is, including defences spending, less that 8% of the total budget! The rest is law: Social security, Medicare, etc. In addition, each of those spending lines is indexed for inflation, often well above the inflation rate.
Congress passes laws...it is the entire budgetary mechanism that has become an absolute sham, and knows no political boundaries.
No one wants to take on Social Security and Medicare, which is akin to policical suicide. And they all have their snout in the trough.
It is not just Bush, folks, or the Republicans.
I think this whole country needs an f'ing civics class.