Help me refute this

[psyntist]

My partner has actually been able to get one of her more conservative cousins into an nice discussion about politics. It might just be a chance to sway one person to see things a bit differently. I am really busy getting ready for the Convention and working on a campaign and do not have the time to do the research up proper. So I turn to you my dear friend on DU to help me.

Here is the quote from the latest email from said cousin;
"Democrats like big government. It takes taxes to run large programs. I am a believer that if you give them control, you increase the size of government. I have not found any of my liberal friends to disagree on this. Conservatives like less government. Therefore less taxes to pay for it. Again I would be hard pressed to find the majority of Dems or Republicans to disagree with this brief and admittedly inadequate comparison of the two."

Facts and figures go a long way. Can you point me to relevate figures on the size of the government under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Shrub? I know that I have seen some stuff the Clinton actually reduced the size of the government. Budget fiugre would help, etc...

Help me swing our cousin just a bit to the left.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. "Help me refute this"

>>Facts and figures go a long way. Can you point me to relevate figures on the size of the government under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Shrub? I know that I have seen some stuff the Clinton actually reduced the size of the government. Budget fiugre would help, etc...<<

Buy here a ticket to F911.

Send here here.. or print it out for her.

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html
Between 1992 and 2000, the U.S. economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years.

[wryter2000]

2. Another link

http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cps/light20030905.htm

Plus, Bush may be interested in taxing less, but he's spent like a drunken sailor. This results in huge deficits, which means that we have to borrow money. Then, we throw away money on the interest payments.

[wryter2000]

3. Ooops. I think I posted my original reply on another thread

The other thing is don't let him define the argument by letting him get away with "everyone agrees." First, tell him in no uncertain terms that everyone does NOT agree.

[Mz Pip]

4. Then Bush is no conservative

The government has grown under Bush. He has not vetoed any spending packages.

Bush is not a conservative. He is a corporate appeaser. The red states love him because of all the farm subsidies he's handed out. It's true he is not raising taxes on the Federal level but state and local taxes are going up to make up the difference and the budget deficit is huge.Someone here has a terrific graph showing the budget deficit under Bush.

I would ask for an example of small government in the Bush Administration.

This is not the 50s where the conservatives were indeed supportive of small government.

MzPip
:dem:

[cureautismnow]

5. Try These...

Sorry for plagiarizing...

----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS-----------
1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,200---Republicans 856,400.
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months.
7.DOW—grew by 52% more under Democrats.
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing Democrat’s hero-CLINTON—versus Republican’s hero--REAGAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.JOBS—grew by 43% more under Clinton.
2.GDP---grew by 57% more under Clinton.
3.DOW—grew by 700% more under Clinton..
4.NASDAQ-grew by 18 times as much under Clinton.
4.SPENDING--grew by 28% under Clinton---80% under Reagan.
5.DEBT—grew by 43% under Clinton—187% under Reagan.
6. DEFICITS—Clinton got a large surplus--grew by 112% under Reagan.
7.NATIONAL INCOME—grew by100% more under Clinton.
8.PERSONAL INCOME—Grew by 110% more under Clinton.
SOURCES—Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.Gov)--Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)—Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
www.the-hamster.com (chart taken from NY Times)
National Archives History on Presidents. www.nara.gov

[stellanoir]

6. can't give you a reference but

I know that I've read in more than several places that * increased government spending by 27%.

At the time of 9/11 we had two (if not 3 including the NSA) big bloated nonfunctional so called intelligence agencies that were clearly not communicating with each other. So what did * do. . .? He created a fourth. . .the Department of Homeland Security.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the heck the difference is between "Homeland" & "National Security is.

Clinton eliminated the deficit & created a surplus and under his watch welfare reform was instituted.

Now we have corporate malfeasance, corruption, no bid cost plus contracts, and incredible war profiteering that will ultimately raise all our taxes at the expense of our state and local services.

This myth of "tax and spend" liberals sounds far better than "loot and waste" so called conservatives.

[jmowreader]

8. The difference between "Homeland" and "National" security

The Department of Homeland Security is the bride of agencies: something old (the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and a few others I've forgotten, were all integrated into this new Cabinet-level department), something new (the name, the logo, the stationery), something borrowed (Tom Ridge, from Pennsylvania), something blue (they have a really pretty blue/black duotone of some marble columns on their homepage) and a big-ass rock in the shoe of all us poor schmucks who have to pay for it.

The National Security Agency is in charge of collecting, analyzing, reporting and disseminating intelligence derived from communications and noncommunications signal sources, and of securing United States government communications.

[DNA]

7. Here's one for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1951293&mesg_id=1951293

How can Republicans be for government spying on what we read and against big government?