I don't have any idea who your source is but mine is the Treasury Departmentimagep;1064222927]According to the link, in 2008 (Bush was POTUS for every day of that year), the government spent $3.25 trillion. In 2000, Clinton's last year, the government spent 2.36 trillion. That's nearly a trillion dollar increase. But maybe my source was just making up numbers, because they are so liberal and everything.
Maybe but mine is the Treasury Department. A lot of good valuable information that from the bank account of the United StatesMore like $650 billion according to the Heritage foundation, but who's counting. Maybe the Heritage Foundation just makes up numbers.
Probably not in the liberal world for he cut taxes, grew income tax revenue over 60% and created 17million private sector jobs. His military spending went from 300 billion to 500 billion and that created a peace dividend for your favorite President, Clinton who wasted itHow about Reagan then, was he not a good one either?
Not really because it is out of context which is what liberals always do, first of all show me the spending proposal in the Reagan stimulus plan. Cannot wait to see that one. What really happened in the Reagan stimulus was ALL TAX CUTS and that led to job creation and millions of new taxpayers giving Congress a lot of money to spend. Reagan spent on destroying the Soviet Union which he did leaving Clinton a peace dividend. The stimulus however put 17 million Americans back to work and had nothing to do with govt. spendingMaybe this will explain his spending a little:
Oh, by the way, ask Tip ONeil how much money the Congress spent over what Reagan wanted. The Reagan stimulus created enough revenue to fund the military expansion but not the addition that Congress wanted and spent
I find it hard to believe that either Mises or Heritage is just making up numbers. Maybe one of us is misreading the numbers (I find this to be the case often). A lot of times, people will look at the wrong years, thinking that since Obama was elected in 2008, 2008 should be attributed to him, or something like that. It's a perfectly natural mistake.
Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances
Then it probably is your contention that the 2009 budget was Bush's as well