Quantcast

Tell me when a republican president has cut spending.

ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2012/05/05 21:28:46
Related Topics: Republican, President
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Rebel Yell 2012/05/05 22:24:41
    Never
    Rebel Yell
    +3
    After their landmark 1994 congressional elections where Republicans gained control of Congress , they promised to eliminate the deficit and reduce wasteful spending. That lasted a nanosecond.

    They went on a spending spree that broke records. Total federal outlays rose 29 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 . Real discretionary spending increased in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are three of the five biggest annual increases in the last 40 years. Large spending increases have been the principal cause of the government's return to massive budget deficits. When the electorate started getting eneasy, Cheney made his now famous " Deficits Don't Matter' quip. Of course they don't unless there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. Then they are watching every dime.
    President Bush signed into law a highway bill passed by his own party with more than 6,000 earmarked projects. The bill Bush ultimately signed came at a price of $286 billion, $295 billion if you count a few provisions disguised to make the bill look cheaper than it actually is. Not exactly holding the line.
    President Bush made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget. Nondefense discretionary outlays increased about 36 percent during President Bush's first term in office. Republicans have forfeited any claim of being the fiscally responsible party in Washington.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Katfish 2012/05/06 08:25:38 (edited)
    Never
    Katfish
    Not in my lifetime but dont forget, congress. A president has to have a sack to veto.
  • Ken 2012/05/06 02:56:20
    All of the above
    Ken
    Eisenhower cut government spending in 1954 and again in 1955. Since then federal spending was cut fractionally by Johnson in 1965 and Obama in 2010.

    Although Clinton balanced the budget, he was not the first to do so. Prior to Clinton, the federal government had a surplus in 1969, 1960 (transition years), 1957, 1956, 1951, 1949, 1948, 1947....and before 1931 America had a surplus every year back to WW I.

    While the overwhelming majority of the budget surpluses occurred with Republican Presidents, I will concede the Republican Party bears little resemblance in geography or policy to the Republican Party of 2012. In the last 50 years, the GOP has done a wonderful job of demonstrating the Thomas Paine remark "virtue is not perpetual....neither is it hereditary."
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Ken 2012/05/06 03:05:54
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    Eisenhower was definitely a different kind of republican, that's for sure. He wouldn't be allowed in the party in 2012.
  • Katfish Ken 2012/05/06 08:26:45
    Katfish
    +1
    Federal spending cut by Obama.....thats funny!!
  • Ken Katfish 2012/05/06 16:12:07
    Ken
    You may not like the facts but all of those dates were obtained by analyzing the Historical Tables provided by the OMB. You can find those tables at this website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb...

    According to these tables in 2010 total outlays by the Federal Government were $3,456 Billion, down $61 Billion from the $3,518 Billion of outlays in 2009. This is easily explained because the TARP program implemented by the Bush Administration was in 2009.
  • Katfish Ken 2012/05/07 15:37:04
    Katfish
    Table 15.4—TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE: 1948–2011 Total Government


    2008 4,671.8
    2009 5,169.9
    2010 5,077.7
    2011 5,294.3

    Guess it depends wether you call it "expenditures" or "outlays" I guess. I agree that the main stream GOP is just as bad though. The spending of 2009 was Bush's budget and it was a high one.
    As far a the infamous Clinton balanced budget- check the funds that were robbed out of Social Security those years "off the budget" Boss Hog Newt tried to take credit for the balanced budget for those same years. He shut his mouth after the SS robbery was brought up.
  • Ken Katfish 2012/05/07 17:46:19
    Ken
    As your numbers show, the 2010 Expenditures like the 2010 outlays were smaller than those in 2009. There are a number of different ways these numbers are sliced so the exact amount smaller depends on whether you include the "off budget" items or not.
  • Ken Katfish 2012/05/06 16:14:46
    Ken
    Only fools believe liars and so any serious student of these tables laughs when the Republicans say they are going to reduce government spending and balance the budget. They simply have never done it. The Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend"
  • EdVenture 2012/05/06 02:15:00
    Never
    EdVenture
    +1
    Apparently when out of office.
  • American☆Atheist 2012/05/06 00:01:50
    Never
    American☆Atheist
    this time.









































































































    .
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/05/05 23:22:56
    Never
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    Never.
  • Rebel Yell 2012/05/05 22:24:41
    Never
    Rebel Yell
    +3
    After their landmark 1994 congressional elections where Republicans gained control of Congress , they promised to eliminate the deficit and reduce wasteful spending. That lasted a nanosecond.

    They went on a spending spree that broke records. Total federal outlays rose 29 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 . Real discretionary spending increased in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are three of the five biggest annual increases in the last 40 years. Large spending increases have been the principal cause of the government's return to massive budget deficits. When the electorate started getting eneasy, Cheney made his now famous " Deficits Don't Matter' quip. Of course they don't unless there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. Then they are watching every dime.
    President Bush signed into law a highway bill passed by his own party with more than 6,000 earmarked projects. The bill Bush ultimately signed came at a price of $286 billion, $295 billion if you count a few provisions disguised to make the bill look cheaper than it actually is. Not exactly holding the line.
    President Bush made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget. Nondefense discretionary outlays increased about 36 percent during President Bush's first term in office. Republicans have forfeited any claim of being the fiscally responsible party in Washington.
  • MichaelJ Rebel Yell 2012/05/05 23:20:47
    MichaelJ
    Rebel I agree. I think most adults agree that we must cut spending and do it very quickly.

    I am going to list some possibilities below and want your opinion is the most likely to balance the budget within four years. Not that they will do it just the MOST likely.

    1.President Obama is reelected and the democrats capture both house of Congress.

    2. President obama is reelected but republicans control both houses of Congress.

    3. Romney is elected and republican controls both houses of Congress.

    4 Romney is elected and the democrats control both houses of Congress.

    5. Ron Paul runs as a thritd party candidate, elected but democrats control Senate and republicans the house.

    6. Enough representitives that are supported by the TEA party movement are elected to Congress to guarantee that there will be no more debt limit increases through the house.

    7 The scenario that you think would ensure the spending cuts the country needs.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ MichaelJ 2012/05/05 23:23:31
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +1
    Now is NOT the time to cut spending, unless you want to be just like Europe.
  • MichaelJ ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2012/05/05 23:25:55
    MichaelJ
    Not a problem, I don't expect success just bored!
  • Katfish MichaelJ 2012/05/06 08:28:40
    Katfish
    5. Ron Paul runs as a thritd party candidate, elected but democrats control Senate and republicans the house.
    Although Dems keeping control of the Senate is unlikely.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Rebel Yell 2012/05/05 23:22:43
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +1
    Interesting info, thanks.
  • MichaelJ 2012/05/05 22:07:10
    All of the above
    MichaelJ
    +2
    Tunde, what the upcoming election is about in a nut shell is this; Unless you are a true communist we know that society operates through the exchange of money.

    If we can agree that money is vital to make society function then you must at least consider that it's fantasy to believe we can continue to spend more than bring in at anywhere near the rate we have.

    Can you honestly tell me that you believe that President Obama can or will drastically cut spending?

    The unfortunate fact is that we will either cut spending or we will destroy the 'golden goose' that has made the society we have enjoyed.

    If our country, does indeed survive our situation it will be done by a simple refusal to continue to spend money at the rate we are republican, democrate it doesn't matter.
  • Scott 2012/05/05 21:51:04
    All of the above
    Scott
    +2
    Oh c'mon. You know. Every Republican has cut spending. That's just the way it is. Everyone knows that. Hell, you saw how much Bush and Reagan cut, right? It was Clinton that spent us into oblivion. It's what I've been told all my life, so it must be true.
  • Katfish Scott 2012/05/06 08:30:36
    Katfish
    Very true except that Clintons famous balanced budgets came from robbing Social Security.
  • Petrifi... Scott 2012/05/06 22:09:08
    PetrifiedElephantPoop
    +2
    I love sarcasm.
  • Scott Petrifi... 2012/05/06 22:31:07
    Scott
    +2
    I especially love when dolts don't realize it is sarcasm.
  • Petrifi... Scott 2012/05/06 22:43:22
    PetrifiedElephantPoop
    +2
    Aren't Catfish bottom feeders anyhow?...lol

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/30 15:51:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals