Why weren't the Republicans Fighting high Spending 8 Years ago?

[froggy]

Senate Fight Seen Over Spending Bill - KGMI-AM

 

[JFK_USA]

Because its was good republican bill. Republicans are holier than thou. Don't question it, not that they are in fact HUGE LIARS if they care about the deficit. They don't but don't worry, Obama is secretly muslim and black so he is not American!!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

While I agree with the implied message that the republicans spent to much during the bush years,it's nothing compared to Obamas spending spree.
Both sides need to stop spending.And cut taxs.

 

[froggy]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/

 

[Article 15]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

That chart is dishonest ... the 2009 budget is Bush's.

 

[editec]

Why weren't the Republicans Fighting high Spending 8 Years ago?

Senate Fight Seen Over Spending Bill - KGMI-AM

Because most loyal GOPers are really socialists (as they define the word) pretending to be capitalists.

That isn't obvious to you already?

 

[8537]

The Republicans passed the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ - without including a single mechanism to pay for it except borrowing. At least the Dems were honest enough to pay for their welfare expansion.

 

[Ravi]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

That chart is dishonest ... the 2009 budget is Bush's.

And 2000 & 2001 were Clinton's.

The chart basically shows that Bush destroyed the economy.

 

[Truthmatters]

And still not a peep for the tea party people about blowing up the deficit.

I wonder when the american people are going to realize the right has no interest in being fiscally responsible?

 

[Full-Auto]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

That chart is dishonest ... the 2009 budget is Bush's.

Wrong einstien. That was the budget democrats would not let bush sign because it did not contain enough spending. They held it over for obama to sign. And before you throw a fit on being exposed, no not the entire budget was with held. Thanks for playing.

 

[JWBooth]

Why?

Party affiliation is an illusion, they are politicians, by definition they are unabashed liars and hypocrites.

 

[Article 15]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

That chart is dishonest ... the 2009 budget is Bush's.

Wrong einstien. That was the budget democrats would not let bush sign because it did not contain enough spending. They held it over for obama to sign. And before you throw a fit on being exposed, no not the entire budget was with held. Thanks for playing.

How much of the $410 billion you are talking about was the extra the Dems were holding out for?

 

[Revere]

Deficits were in decline in the 2000s until Democrats controlled Congress in 2007.

 

[WillowTree]

President had some "actual" crisis to pay for, Katrina, 9-11.. you know shit like that.

 

[Full-Auto]

That chart is dishonest ... the 2009 budget is Bush's.

Wrong einstien. That was the budget democrats would not let bush sign because it did not contain enough spending. They held it over for obama to sign. And before you throw a fit on being exposed, no not the entire budget was with held. Thanks for playing.

How much of the $410 billion you are talking about was the extra the Dems were holding out for?

You tell us, as it went to obamas desk. Gw threatened to veto. Shooting your spending rant to hell.

 

[Sallow]

Deficits were in decline in the 2000s until Democrats controlled Congress in 2007.

Absolutely and utterly false.

Bush put 2 wars on emergency supplemental spending. It wasn't included as part of the general budget.

Accounting tricks were all over the Bush administration.

 

[Truthmatters]

Still no word for the tea party on this bill

 

[Article 15]

Wrong einstien. That was the budget democrats would not let bush sign because it did not contain enough spending. They held it over for obama to sign. And before you throw a fit on being exposed, no not the entire budget was with held. Thanks for playing.

How much of the $410 billion you are talking about was the extra the Dems were holding out for?

You tell us, as it went to obamas desk. Gw threatened to veto. Shooting your spending rant to hell.

You tell me. You are the one who said that some of the budget was held up because Dems wanted more spending. Obama signed the last $410 billion of the budget. How much of that $410 billion was the extra spending the Dems were holding out for? Of course, even if it were all additional spending (which it wasn't) you are still looking at a trillion dollar Bush deficit that year so it's all kinda moot. The 2009 budget is Bush's.

 

[Revere]

Deficits were in decline in the 2000s until Democrats controlled Congress in 2007.

Absolutely and utterly false.

Bush put 2 wars on emergency supplemental spending. It wasn't included as part of the general budget.

Accounting tricks were all over the Bush administration.

Those wars don't begin to cover the tripling of the deficit that occurred starting in 2008.

 

[Revere]