Friday, January 27, 2012

Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Under George W. Bush

17 comments:

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Now, was there cronyism involved? THERE'S ALWAYS CRONYISM INVOLVED! But to say that it was worse (de facto) than Obama, Daschle, Emanuel, etc. is probably wishful thinking at this point. I'm sorry but, yeah.

Jerry Critter said...

I wonder how much of Bush 43 non-defense discretionary spending was homeland security related?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that most of it was HUD, education, transportation, and HHS (the latter, especially).............Jerry, he was a bad foreign policy President who also ran up monstrous deficits. Do we really have to say that he hated poor people, too? I mean, seriously, is the political environment THAT toxic now?

Jerry Critter said...

I wouldn't say he "hated" poor people. I think like most republicans, he just didn't care about them.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That's still pretty harsh. The dude forked over 15 billion for AIDS relief and far exceeded the rate of inflation on social spending. Did he do it EXACTLY the way that the left would have wanted in all regards? No, probably not. But to so negatively impugn literally every fiber of another person's being like this, I don't know, I guess that just can't relate to it.............Like with that Jolly Roger guy, over at Truth's blog tonight he referred to Jeb Bush as "the only non-Klansman among them". Certainly, you would say that that was over the top, no?

Jerry Critter said...

There is certainly some over the top name calling on both sides. Hell, the republicans are even doing it to each other.

Rusty Shackelford said...

That graph is the reason most conservatives have'nt much use for W.

One veto in eight years....makes me sick.

dmarks said...

Will said: "That's still pretty harsh. The dude forked over 15 billion for AIDS relief"

He also did more for Africa than any president before (or after):

click here

While there is wild disagreement when it comes to his middle east/near east foreign policy, I doubt anyone can claim at all that George W. Bush was a "he was a bad foreign policy President" when it came to Africa.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

George bush didn't care about poor people. Any money he spent on programs for the poor was for public relations (or payoffs to donors who made money off of providing the services). He didn't want to turn off independent voters with his crass callousness/it was crony capitalism.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

George bush was was bad on foreign policy when it came to Africa.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You read my mind, Russ. I was just thinking about this the other day. Conservatives (as opposed to partisan Republicans, I'm saying) don't have any great love for George W. Bush. I mean, the libertarians just flat-out hate him (go to youtube and check out any of the tutorials from the Cato Institute and THAT becomes obvious). But I guess because he has an R in front of his name, the progressives can't really give him any credit, either.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"George bush didn't care about poor people. Any money he spent on programs for the poor was for public relations."............More uncorroborated speculation and mind-reading from wd, people. Gee, what a surprise, huh?

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD is pissed at Bush because his handouts from the government slowed down those eight years.He's happy now that the faucet is open for him again.Thats the reason for their "lets tax the rich" mantra...they want more free stuff that someone else will pay for.They have no shame.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

My positions re tax policy have nothing to do with my personal situation. Except my belief that the economy will improve if the tax policies I prefer were put in place. An improved economy would benefit me... but it would benefit everyone else as well.

In other words, fVck you Rusty, you don't know what the fVck you're talking about.

Will: More uncorroborated speculation and mind-reading from wd...

I know how Republicans operate. This was bush raiding the government piggy bank to pay off his cronies. Policies that would improve the economy for everyone would not be as profitable for the already wealthy. Increasing spending on the poor is cheaper then supporting policies that will decrease the number of poor.

Policies like higher marginal tax rates. Regulations to prevent gambling on Wall Steet. Other regulations to reign in corporate crime. Support for unions and the minimum wage. All these would cost the wealthy a little more... But compared to how much they can make when allowed free reign? This is why the percentage of wealth held by the upper class increased so dramatically under bush.

Bush held a lavish 10-course dinner party for the wealthy and threw the poor slightly more table scraps so they wouldn't revolt. But now a breaking point has been reached, which is why OWS has taken to the streets.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Oh, and Obama and company didn't accept any money from the big wigs. My God, they're frigging swimming in corporate cash, for Christ.............And, again, you provide no direct evidence pertaining to Mr. Bush's motives. Just more slander and ruthless speculation.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Policies like higher marginal tax rates."

And that's a policy that will do absolutely nothing to help the poor.

"Support for unions and the minimum wage."

These harm the poor and increase their numbers. You really need to come up with better ideas.

Rahul Pandey said...

Rahul
its a most important blog...