All Aboard the Federal Gravy Train: We're In The Midst of Largest Federal Gold Rush Since the 1960s
Federal spending is growing by leaps and bounds. The budget hit $3.9 trillion this year, double the level of spending just eight years ago. The government is also increasing the scope of its activities, intervening in many areas that used to be left to state and local governments, businesses, charities, and individuals.
By 2008, there were 1,804 different subsidy programs in the federal budget. Hundreds of programs were added this decade—ranging from a $62 billion prescription drug plan to a $1 million anti-drug education grant—and the recent stimulus bill added even more. We are in the midst of the largest federal gold rush since the 1960s.
~From the study "Number of Federal Subsidy Programs Tops 1,800," by Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute
12 Comments:
Lobbyists go to Washington for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks -- because that's where the money is.
Well saying that Congress and Obama are spending like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors everywhere...
Heck, even Sen. John Kerry wants federal dollars to save his hometown rag...
Gee, you keep pointing out hwo well the economy is doing,that things are great and have never been greater, that things are not as bad as they seem.
You think the run up in government spending is the reason?
Hydra
"Gee, you keep pointing out hwo well the economy is doing,that things are great and have never been greater, that things are not as bad as they seem"...
Hmmm, I guess you haven't been paying attention...
Why don't you mention the real State sponsored gold rush?
The FEDERAL RESERVE gold rush.
10.5 trillion of the US economy is now being backstopped by the Federal Reserve.
As a free-market economist, how can you support this soviet-style central planning of the most basic unit of exchange in our economy: money
hey, how come you never mention the GWBush goldrush?
the demos are tryin' hard to beat it, but bush and the republican congress still have the record.
oops, before you-know-who chimes in:
yes, i understand the spending came from the (republican) congress. i call it the GWBush goldrush because in all those years he vetoed but one bill.
"hey, how come you never mention the GWBush goldrush?"...
Hey bobble, ever consider getting someone to explain it to you what it means by Had the Second-Highest Number of Earmarks in History Despite the Change in Congressional Leadership?
"republican congress still have the record"...
Yeah, that 2005 year Bush had a viciously lame 'veto pen' without a doubt...
BTW can you refresh my memory, how many Democrats complained about those earmarks? I just know there had to be a few, right?
You mean this Republican Congress or are you talking about sometime prior to 2007?
Hows that ethical Congress Pelosi promised working out for you?
1:"Hey bobble, ever consider getting someone to explain it to you what it means by Had the Second-Highest Number of Earmarks in History Despite the Change in Congressional Leadership?"
lol, i knew you'd have something to say.
so, tell me if i'm right here. it means the demos are still #2. bush and the 2005 repubs are still #1.
i'm NOT saying the demos are any better. fact is, i'm sure the demos will be the #1 earmarkers soon. and, lord knows, the demos already sicken me.
i just wanted to point out to the *suddenly* fiscally conservative right wing, that they live in a glass house. the last 8 years were a fiscal nightmare. deficit spending up the wazoo! bridges to nowhere!!!!
"i just wanted to point out to the *suddenly* fiscally conservative right wing, that they live in a glass house. the last 8 years were a fiscal nightmare."
Not all Republicans are conservative, and not all conservatives are Republicans.
If elected individuals participate in profligate spending, then they're not conservatives i.e. so-called "right wingers."
anon: "If elected individuals participate in profligate spending, then they're not conservatives . . "
excellent point, anon.
they are the so-called "neo-cons". they hijacked a perfectly good republican party and turned it into a gawdawful mess. deficit spending, useless wars, constitutional desecration (torture, wiretapping, denial of habeus corpus), and, of course, economic mayhem.
"so, tell me if i'm right here. it means the demos are still #2. bush and the 2005 repubs are still #1"...
So far bobble but then again 2009 will be interesting won't it?
"i just wanted to point out to the *suddenly* fiscally conservative right wing"...
Just who were these alledged, 'conservative right wing' you are talking about?
Surely you don't mean George W Bush or someone like Sen. Arlen Specter, right?
Neither of them have ever been considered conservatives...
"they are the so-called "neo-cons""...
So bobble did you pull that term from the Liberal Lexicon or did you know that term was generated from the antics of Scoop Jackson?
Post a Comment
<< Home