For if George Bush was a true Republican, then he’d be more fiscally conservative. Alas he is not. For aside from the war (which I’m for) he’s still managed to blow wads of taxpayer’s money on frivolous social programs/causes, including the $50 billion education bill, another $15 billion for fighting AIDS in Africa, and let’s not forget that minor little $800 billion (AND RISING) boondoggle on Medicare (yes, all frivolous, don’t get into it with me).
All of this (and more) has increased government spending as a percent of our economy from 18% to 19.5% (as of 2003). This may not seem like a lot, but keep in mind this is while the economy was growing by leaps and bounds. i.e.-government spending under GW has increased faster than the economy has been growing. The result? GW has only been outspent by LBJ and his idiot-mollifying, vote-bribing policy called “The Great Society.”
Joy.
But this behooves the question that has been plaguing me for some time; “why does the left hate GW so much, and herald Bill Clinton as their god, when the opposite should be true?”
Alas, perhaps I am foolish in assuming democrats do as they “should” or adhere to some sort of logic…alas, perhaps I may also be foolish in thinking that people in general look at these charts.
Yeah, that chart haunts my nightmares.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I would like to think that GW is trying to pull a Ronald Reagan, when such an expansionary fiscal policy was warranted to get us out of the Volcker Recession, and on the angle that a low tax, but high spend budget would trigger enough economic growth that it would dwarf our national debt and deficits, but with the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers and the ungodly amount of resources they're going to consume, I'm just not seeing it.
ReplyDeletehave no fear! I read your charts.
ReplyDeleteThe current rate of spending certainly isn't promising, especially considering the glut of retirees that we're about to start seeing in about 5...4...3...
Aside from the Reagan recession angle, I've heard it told before that Reaganomics were basically designed to "bankrupt the soviet union" and that getting us out of the recession was only secondary to that end.
Whatever it was, it worked.