This is the 'biggest bubble in the history of mankind and it's going to burst,' Ron Paul says

[Anler]

4 hours ago, Highmark said:

Sorry but it didn't increase 20% from 2000 to 2001.   It went up about 4.6%.   And remember his first budget wasn't until 2002.   It did go up around 8% in 2002 but there was this little thing called 9/11 that played a bit of a role.

You are correct in saying the GOP hasn't been fiscally conservative since Clinton was in office.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_United_States_federal_budget

The United States Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, was a spending request by President Bill Clinton to fund government operations for October 2000-September 2001. Figures shown in the spending request do not reflect the actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, which must be authorized by Congress.

Oh yeah, sorry... 

Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years

Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

As predicted by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, author of such key books as Crisis and Leviathan and the new Against Leviathan, this explosion of government power would only have been possible in the aftermath of 9/11. Times of crisis present the easiest opportunities for politicians to take advantage of a frightened American public.

President George W. Bush is now on his way to becoming the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) to not veto a single bill. The result is a congress that has been completely unconstrained in satiating its appetite for pork and corporate welfare. In response, Democratic challenger John Kerry has maligned alleged spending cuts and called for even higher taxes and spending. The consequence is that we now have two parties competing to see which can grow government faster.

From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending, George W. Bush has demonstrated that “limited government” is not part of his political vocabulary

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsid=31

[Highmark]

Just now, Nazipigdog said:

Oh yeah, sorry... 

Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years

Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

As predicted by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, author of such key books as Crisis and Leviathan and the new Against Leviathan, this explosion of government power would only have been possible in the aftermath of 9/11. Times of crisis present the easiest opportunities for politicians to take advantage of a frightened American public.

President George W. Bush is now on his way to becoming the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) to not veto a single bill. The result is a congress that has been completely unconstrained in satiating its appetite for pork and corporate welfare. In response, Democratic challenger John Kerry has maligned alleged spending cuts and called for even higher taxes and spending. The consequence is that we now have two parties competing to see which can grow government faster.

From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending, George W. Bush has demonstrated that “limited government” is not part of his political vocabulary

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsid=31

Didn't say it didn't increase.   I just countered your claim that it went up 20% in 2001 or that 2001 had anything to do with GWB.  

Bush ended up a neocon.   Spreading freedom and high domestic spending.

Keep in mind his 2nd round of tax cuts also produced the greatest gains and highest tax revenue our country ever seen however that could not overcome the spending.  

Couldn't say no to either party.   

[snoughnut]

5 hours ago, Nazipigdog said:

Its possible that it could have been bought, for pennies on the dollar. But who knows what the recovery time would be. Could have been a 10 year recession. The people who caused this should have been the ones to suffer but they got bailed out AND rewarded. 

The banks were bailed out but our very own govt. caused the housing crash via de-regulation and not paying attention to the way things unfolded. The TARP ( Taxpayer Ass Raping Program) program was the largest welfare handout in history given to those who happen to despise welfare the most. I personally would have rather gone into a depression that way we could have watched some bankers swan dive off of New York's finest skyscrapers.

[1jkw]

1 hour ago, steve from amherst said:

Sorry but people buy a certain number of cars. If GM wasn't making them they would from someone else. And that someone else would still need suppliers to build parts.

It was not only GM,  Ford got money but not from TARP.  The CEO's of Ford and Chrysler both said if GM went down it would have brought them down too.  Not to mention the pension costs