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

[Truthmatters]

republicans: make a mess of the government and then blame the dems once they start cleaning up the mess.

 

[Revere]

Is an additional three trillion in debt "cleaning up the mess?"

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes you fucking asshole

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

LOL You said it was bushs budget but Obama signed part of it.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Because there is no difference between the democrats and the republicans. They are both fascists and a better label would be demopublicans.

.

 

[Agit8r]

Our country is ruled by dead presidents. if Big Money wants spending appropriated, congress appropriates funds for Big Money. The "two" parties are just for theatrical purposes

 

[Truthmatters]

We are not talking about the people at the top you silly gits.

Why are the people at this site saying NOTHING about the budget bust and defending it instead?

 

[Article 15]

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.

LOL You said it was bushs budget but Obama signed part of it.

Thanks for playing.

It is Bush's budget. Trying to claim otherwise because Obama signed the last $410 billion (of which you have refused to say how much was the "additional" spending you speak of) of a budget of more than $3 trillion that Bush submitted and signed, and was already $1 trillion in the hole is just nonsense.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Because there is no difference between the democrats and the republicans. They are both fascists and a better label would be demopublicans.

.

No, no, no....they're the Republicrats. To sides of the same coin.

 

[Revere]

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.

LOL You said it was bushs budget but Obama signed part of it.

Thanks for playing.

It is Bush's budget. Trying to claim otherwise because Obama signed the last $410 billion (of which you have refused to say how much was the "additional" spending you speak of) of a budget of more than $3 trillion that Bush submitted and signed, and was already $1 trillion in the hole is just nonsense.

Are the 2010 and 2011 budget's Bush's, too?

 

[Truthmatters]

Why are the people on the right constantly defending this Budget buster??????


What happened to your concern about spending?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Well, it's ok when they do it, don't you know?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

That's patently false and even shown by the chart you reposted.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

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

No, you are dishonest. The 2009 budget was not passed during Bush's administration nor was it signed off by him. Obama signed it and he didn't have to. He had the political capital and an over 80% approval rating from the American people that he could have rejected that budget and told Congress to go back to the drawing board. Instead he wholeheartedly embraced a $1.75 trillion deficit for 2009.

The president blamed the nation's economic travails on the administration that preceded him and on a nation that lost its bearings. His budget plan projects a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the gross domestic product, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II.

Wall Street Journal

 

[Revere]

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

That's patently false and even shown by the chart you reposted.

No, after 2004, deficits steadily declined, until 2008.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

That's patently false and even shown by the chart you reposted.

No, after 2004, deficits steadily declined, until 2008.

Claiming that deficit reduction is running up the deficit for three years in a row before scaling it back at a much slower pace is nothing more than double speak. It's like something Baghdad Bob would say.

 

[Revere]

That's patently false and even shown by the chart you reposted.

No, after 2004, deficits steadily declined, until 2008.

Claiming that deficit reduction is running up the deficit for three years in a row before scaling it back at a much slower pace is nothing more than double speak. It's like something Baghdad Bob would say.

No, the deficit was in decline, even after Bush tax cuts were full on.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Senate Fight Seen Over Spending Bill - KGMI-AM

The economy was fine and there was a couple of wars going on.

 

[Truthmatters]

Link to where you got your chart?

 

[Toro]

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.

It was Bush's budget. Obama's stimulus spending added another $100 billion to the deficit.

Obama is responsible for the budgets thereafter, however.