Outspending Big Spenders

Tim Swanson, October 24, 2007

This is hardly news considering how it takes nearly a trillion dollars to maintain an empire (1 2 3), but what part of fiscal conservatism does this represent: Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ?

And if you look closely at the fine print, those numbers do not even take into account the long-term obligations and entitlements that someone has to pay for the welfare handouts — which were also increased during his tenure.

Apologists will of course probably suggest that he has the back-bone and wherewithal to spend when others would just cut and run.

That, and 9/11 changed everything.

See also: Is Bush Now a Budget Cutter?



8 Responses to “Outspending Big Spenders”

  1. Marycatherine Barton
    October 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am

    Apologists or not, the vast, vast majority of the citizens of the USA disdainfully disapprove of the policies of President Bush and of Congress. I don’t think that most of us think that the Bush, Cheney, and their entire front office administrative staff should be taken out and shot, which is what the Honorable General Dwight Eisenhower said should be done to the 1,000 or so in Hitler’s administration. However, on the Lou Dodd Report survey, 90% of the respondents said that it will certainly take more than ten years for most of the middle class Americans to recover from the mishandling of our economy thanks to the Decider Bush’s reign.

  2. MOT
    October 24th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

    Since “mainstream” media has betrayed us all by not doing its damn duty in going after the bastards, as if that’s a surprise, it’s then left up to the rest of us to sift through the dross for those bits o’truth.

  3. Spyfor
    October 25th, 2007 at 1:39 am

    10 Years to recover! We’ll be over run by the Mogul hordes by then…or lead based Chinese toys

  4. R. Nelson
    October 25th, 2007 at 1:45 am

    There are big government/small warfare countries like Sweden. But I can’t think of a single big warfare nation that had a small government. Maintaining an empire is not only expensive per se, but is necessarily intertwined with mammoth domestic government power and spending.

    It’s that old tradeoff. The president gets to run the war he wants to with Congress’s aid, while Congress gets to earmark all the pork it wants to with the president’s approval.

  5. Marycatherine Barton
    October 25th, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Correction: the word “general” should replace the words “front office administrative”. Sorry.

  6. Vassili
    October 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    People in the US have been brainwashed into believing that when country is not ruled in a democratic way the People can not affect what the Govt. does.

    Sure they can. In fact, People would always get what they want – the only question is at what cost. When 99% of the polulation hates the Govt. – such Govt. would be swept away – but not by means of an ordely democratic process, but by means of a bloody rebellion.

    No amount of force and coercion can keep the hated regime in place, if indeed 99% of the population wants it to go down.

    Very good case in point is the USSR – I believe that one true and real cause of it’s collapse was the Afgan war. When indeed 99% of the population did not like the Govt – it did not take long. Since Gorbachev managed to open up information feedback channels before it was too late – it took very little blood – literally of 2 people.

    But Bush seems to be doing quite the opposite – i.e. clogging the information feedback channels as the war gets less and less popular.

  7. Tim R.
    October 25th, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    Question: If Iraq was a terrible mistake ( and perhaps it was), what alternatives would you propose? I’m sick and tired of people saying “End the War” and “Get out of Iraq.” I mean, maybe they are right, maybe we should get out of Iraq and let the bloodthirsty radical Muslims kill each other. But what alternative do you propose. Do you honestly think that the Islamo Fascists will be satisfied if we leave Iraq? Nothing short of world wide Islamic rule will satisfy them. We are at war not just with nation states, but with a dangerous relgion, radical Islam. How do we combat it? Or do we just sit back, blame Israel for everything, repeal the patriot act and tie the hands of law enforcement,and wait until the Muslim nazis get nuclear weapons and hit us again?

  8. justaguy
    October 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    Christ, play a different record will ya?