Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

[sabra]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.

“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.

“He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html

---

[LeFleur1]

1. Yabbut...

LBJ spent on civil rights and social programs as well as making the big, big mistake called Viet Nam. He did do some good. Just sayin'

Bush has done nothing good. Nothing.

[cstanleytech]

8. You are right mostly but

He did order the troops into Afghanistan after all which I thought Clinton should have taken a firmer stance against once the taliban came into power and he did extend the drug benefit program for Medicare. Not a perfect record there though because he screwed up with denying the federal government the ability to negotiate discounts with drug companies or even to import cheaper versions of some of drugs from overseas.
Other than those two things yeah for the most part he has done nothing good for this country as a whole and has been a divider not a uniter.

[tabasco]

11. A WASTED effort in Afghanistan.

Bush would not send enough troops to Afghanistan because he had most of the Army om standby for Cheney's oil grab. We sent max three divisions to Afghanistan. Bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora because NO US troops were guarding the border. Bush trusted the PAKISTANIS to catch Bin Laden! What a joke! Bush obviously WANTED Bin Laden to get away. Trusting his friends to catch Bin Laden was a tragic joke on the American people.

If you recall correctly, the majority republicans SQUEALED LIKE PIGS when Clinton wanted to do anything in Afghanistan. They said he was WAGGING THE DOG because they were concentrating on more important national issues like BLOWJOBS.

Take your bullshit somewhere else. Nobody here is stupid enough to believe it.

And yes, I am a former infantry officer with combat experience and know what the fuck I'm talking about.

[cstanleytech]

13. Well

you have a point he did not finish the job which he should have as for the bullshit comment it was uncalled for and makes me :(

[tabasco]

15. Yeah I bet it makes you sad.

The truth hurts.

[0007]

14. Duh?

[cstanleytech]

19. To simply it I am only saying he has done some

good things not many, in fact most of whats he has done I completely disagree with but I cant ignore the good stuff because of all the other stuff.
True the drug program is not saving money but its covering people more like my mother who could not afford all the medications she needs since her stroke so for that I am happy, I am not thrilled that he when he signed the bill he refused to let the feds talk to the drug companies to get lower prices or to look into importing cheaper versions of drugs but with the democrats in charge I am hoping that part will change.

[Pastiche423]

17. Wha.................?

" ...he did extend the drug benefit program for Medicare."

He FUCKED everyone on Medicare w/his plan. Ever hear of the donut hole?

I take it you are not on Medicare.

What an incredibly stupid statement.

:grr:

[EST]

23. Very important point you make.

The whole point of the medicare drug benefit was not to provide a drug benefit, but to destroy medicare. The fascist wingers aren't really interested it gay rights nor abortion--that's a sop to keep the fundies in the fold.

However, their real goal is the destruction and elimination of social programs that they refer to as "entitlements." Social security and medicare offend the hell out of "conservatives" and the only real way to kill them is to drive them into bankruptcy.
The nutlery know this, while most normal people really haven't a clue.

[jwirr]

2. And unlike LBJ *ss has nothing to show for his money.

[shanti]

4. of course not

because the only place it's going is into the pockets of he and his friends.

[shanti]

3. where's clinton?

:shrug:

[onehandle]

5. Bill Clinton was out of control with his spending.

Hey, he's not on the list!

Freepers. Was Bill Clinton a fiscally responsible President? Say it ain't so!

[ixion]

6. DHS is the single largest government abortion, er, agency ever created

"small-government" my a**! :grr:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. Yet almost all of bush's spending hasn't had a positive impact on Americans

Something that at least could not be said of LBJ.

[SpiralHawk]

9. republicons -- borrow and spend, borrow and spend

Putting America in hock to the "godless red commies of China"

Thanks a pantload for lying to America about being "conservative" you republicons, you

Our children and grandchildren will suffer for your lies and your fooloish spending ways, which enrich only yourfat-cat corrupt republicon cronies

[Magleetis]

10. Ask any cowboy

Killin ain't cheap.

[cosmik debris]

12. Statistics don't agree with title and content of article

The stats shown show that Bush had a larger "growth in spending, NOT the most spending. Ronnie Raygun still holds that record if I am not mistaken.

Why can't people see through this lame and useless reporting. This journalist should be fired.

[Brrrp]

16. And this will cause inflation, just like the Vietnam War (nt)

[Judi Lynn]

18. War Costs: Even Worse Than You Think

War Costs: Even Worse Than You Think
The Nation
1 hour, 7 minutes ago

The Nation -- The federal government will spend $2.4 trillion by 2017 for waging the "War on Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was the most mind-boggling statistic to come from the Congressional Budget Office's estimate released today on the rapidly rising costs of Bush's war.

The number assumes that the current 200,00 U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will be reduced to 75,000 by 2013 and remain at that level by 2017. At a hearing of the House Budget Committee on Wednesday, CBO Director Peter Orzag described just how much money we're talking about:

-$11 billion a month is being spent in funding for Afghanistan and Iraq-- of which $9 billion goes to Iraq. In 2003, President Bush's Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, estimated the cost of the Iraq War would be $50 to $60 billion.

-Of the $2.4 trillion figure, $1.7 trillion is the projected war costs over the next 10 years. Nearly $900 billion of this is for actually fighting the wars, while $700 billion will be used to pay off interest on the money borrowed to finance the wars.

More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071024/cm_thenation/15245831;_ylt=A9G_RnhKph9H6JUACRT9wxIF

[ohio2007]

20. No more Texas presidents. Must be something in the water

They send ya off to war

[Nutmegger]

21. Yet crap for social programs.

More money for blood, greed, and oil. Buck Fush.

[ryanmuegge]

22. That's one name with which a President never wants to be compared.

They're both deficit spenders and bloodthirsty murderers. A logically sound connection, to be sure.

[surfermaw]

24. Think Back to Kennedys first term

Think, I read something that said Kennedy got up set at a meeting and said , he was going to stop the war and bring the boys home, not long after he was shot and killed in Texas, I have always thought that the Defense Contractors had this Young President killed, as to get Lyndon Johnson in office, they probably had enough on him to keep the war going and selling things for defense, to keep their pockets growing with tax monies... I have always thought this to be the story, and since Bush came to oofice I believe it even more... They thought President Kennedy would stop the war,