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

[loosecannon]

Senate Fight Seen Over Spending Bill - KGMI-AM

Trust me on this, the republicans are not fighting high spending now and they will never fight high spending.

They just want all the deficits to accumulate buying their wish list.

Until Obama came along the repubs were the unchallenged kings of fiscal irresponsibility.

If you gave the republicans control over the house, the WH and 61 senators they would use that to spend even more money than Obama has.

That is a fact and everybody should realize it.

 

[Toro]

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?

No. Those are on Obama.

 

[uscitizen]

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


For the same reason you will see the Tea Party fizzle down to almost nothing after the Republicans control congrress and the presidency again.

And if you do not understand that I am afraid no one can teach you.

 

[Avatar4321]

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


What happened to your concern about spending?

You dont bust a budget by keeping taxes the same. You bust a budget by spending money.

How can you suppport additional entitlements and trillions in spending for special interests in the name of a "stimulus" but object to people not being taxed more?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

There is no way that we are going to deal with this deficit by just raising taxes or just cutting spending. It will have to be both. Or else we will just go on borrowing. And sometime, some way, we will have to pay that money back.

For those of you that know your history, review what we did to Great Britain during the Suez Crisis. Now consider what China can do to us with the amount of debt that we are creating.

Fiscal sanity would have been letting the tax cuts expire for all. Spending? Well, I see no need for a great many of our overseas bases. And why are we giving tax breaks to companies making billions in profits every quarter?

 

[Iowa10000]

Give me a break; the republicans aren't fiscal now except when it comes to taking it away from people who needs it. Why don't you republicans talk about starting two wars and not paying for them? Tax cuts which 90% went to people as basically a gift for their support, which were not paid for, 8 years of them, which now will become 10.

What the bush tax cuts said we will give those who have plenty enough to invest in a new business venture, so they won't have to use their own money. Then if they fail they will not lose anything, and better yet they will get another tax deduction for the loss of the money we provided for them. Talking about a ponzi game.

Why is it that the top 1 % average over 100000.00 in tax cuts but only invest 80,000 to start a new company. The problem is 600,000 new businesses starts each year, of which 2/3's are in name only and employee no one. That leaves 200,000 rich people receiving 100,000 tax cuts starting 80,000 startup companies out of the over 1 million people receiving these tax give aways.

The truth is tax cuts to the rich provide about 20 cents on the dollar in return for what they are given. and in the process they even gain more when the company fails in the next years gift.

And what’s really sad is idiots like the righty's on this site which none of you are in the top 1% do all the bidding to help the rich put more space between them and all the rest of us (you included) IDIOTS is being nice.

 

[Old Rocks]

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


What happened to your concern about spending?

You dont bust a budget by keeping taxes the same. You bust a budget by spending money.

How can you suppport additional entitlements and trillions in spending for special interests in the name of a "stimulus" but object to people not being taxed more?

Get real. The budget was busted the second that Bush and the Republicans decided to cut taxes in the middle of a war, instead of doing the sane thing and increasing them. The fact that you are still yapping about keeping the tax cut in effect simply demonstrates that you are in no way serious about fiscal sanity.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

What bullshit. The cost of the wars was off of the budget. In fact, as with most things, Bush's whole budget was a lie. If you guys were serious you would have made sure the deficit was going in the same direction as it was under Clinton.

You were not then, and are not now, in any way serious about the deficit. The only part that you are serious about is that the money that is borrowed to increase the deficit be money that goes to the upper 1%, not to working citizens of this nation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Get real. The budget was busted the second that Bush and the Republicans decided to cut taxes in the middle of a war, instead of doing the sane thing and increasing them. The fact that you are still yapping about keeping the tax cut in effect simply demonstrates that you are in no way serious about fiscal sanity.

We weren't at war when the Tax Cuts were passed, which happened prior to 9/11.

Nor does increasing taxes seem like an intelligent thing to do when we are wasting so much money elsewhere in the budget.

What we need to do is eliminate the part of the budget called "Mandatory spending" Which is completely misnamed and not mandatory. It's simply an expression for budget increases that are automatic. Eliminate the automatic nature of those increases and make everything in the budget something that will be voted on.

 

[shintao]

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.

Why you sound like you think you should also get a new pair of shoes. The idea was to get everything the republicans could for their own, and they did. So don't worry when the American citizen actually gets back some of his tax dollars. I hope he spends ten to one on the American people who actually live here, and there is 300 million of them to your 30,000 or so.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Does that include the cost of two wars that were kept off the books?

 

[JBeukema]

The Reps gave us the longest war in American history and kept it off the books


anyone who believes them when they claim to care about deficits and fiscal responsibility is too stupid to be allowed to vote

 

[shintao]

Get real. The budget was busted the second that Bush and the Republicans decided to cut taxes in the middle of a war, instead of doing the sane thing and increasing them. The fact that you are still yapping about keeping the tax cut in effect simply demonstrates that you are in no way serious about fiscal sanity.

We weren't at war when the Tax Cuts were passed, which happened prior to 9/11.

Nor does increasing taxes seem like an intelligent thing to do when we are wasting so much money elsewhere in the budget.

What we need to do is eliminate the part of the budget called "Mandatory spending" Which is completely misnamed and not mandatory. It's simply an expression for budget increases that are automatic. Eliminate the automatic nature of those increases and make everything in the budget something that will be voted on.

Yes, we should stop feeding Israel and the rest of the foreign aid crowd, bring all our troops home, and stop wasting money on the ME contractors.

 

[Ragnar]

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

Both parties are about high spending. The Dims are just always fighting for a little higher high spending.

It's always been about the lesser of two evils...

Why no Tea Party revolt when Bush increased education spending up 50% with NCLB? The Dims wanted more.

Why no taxpayer revolt after the giant drug benefits package? The Dims wanted a bigger one.

Why did the war protesting go nowhere? Both parties voted overwhelmingly to go.

When the Dims took back congress the spending just got worse. When Obama won the POTUS it got worse still. Pelosi, Reid and Obama continue to seek spending and power without limit.

 

[rdean]

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

The don't fight it now. Their only fight is to give tax breaks to the top 1.7% of the country.

 

[bucs90]

We didn't fight it 8 years ago because it was under Bush, who is white, Republican and from Texas. And we love war, and oil, and he gave us more of both, oh and we dont like gays either, and we hate poor people.

But now, it's done by Obama, who is black, a Muslim and not born here, and we hate people who embody each of those, but especially all 3.

There...................thats what you libs want to hear and believe, right?

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, we should stop feeding Israel and the rest of the foreign aid crowd, bring all our troops home, and stop wasting money on the ME contractors.

I've got no problem doing that as long as we are likewise cutting government programs that dont work and bueacracies we don't need and which are unconstitutional.

Let's drop the Department of HS, Energy, and education. I think that would be a good start.

 

[Avatar4321]

And for the records, we've always been fighting high spending. Unfortunately, our representatives are weasels who care more about themselves than the people who they represent.

 

[rdean]

We didn't fight it 8 years ago because it was under Bush, who is white, Republican and from Texas. And we love war, and oil, and he gave us more of both, oh and we dont like gays either, and we hate poor people.

But now, it's done by Obama, who is black, a Muslim and not born here, and we hate people who embody each of those, but especially all 3.

There...................thats what you libs want to hear and believe, right?

I suspect you got a lot of Republicans nodding until the last sentence. Then they suddenly became confused. Well, you did a good job of summing up the State of Texas Republican Party Platform, except you have to add in, "Teach the controversy" and "prayer in public school".

 

[bucs90]

We didn't fight it 8 years ago because it was under Bush, who is white, Republican and from Texas. And we love war, and oil, and he gave us more of both, oh and we dont like gays either, and we hate poor people.

But now, it's done by Obama, who is black, a Muslim and not born here, and we hate people who embody each of those, but especially all 3.

There...................thats what you libs want to hear and believe, right?

I suspect you got a lot of Republicans nodding until the last sentence. Then they suddenly became confused. Well, you did a good job of summing up the State of Texas Republican Party Platform, except you have to add in, "Teach the controversy" and "prayer in public school".

Well, speaking of "teach the controversy" in schools, lets talk about evolution.

Do you think it's possible that in 2003, our electorate was dumb as hell, like most people of all parties when it came to politics in 2003, and really didn't think much more about politics than they did the next American Idol?

And after a horrible run for the GOP in 01-06, and a collapsed economy, and the worst terror attack on US soil ever, etc, etc, etc............that our electorate EVOLVED into being more awake and paid more attention to politics? And in that process they learned "Hey, this overspending stuff is really dangerous" and began to oppose it?

If you are gonna say our population in general is not more politically aware now, on both sides, than they were in 2001-2005, you're simply wrong. Events of the past decade have awakened Americans.

Unfortunately, that awakening also happened under the watch of your savior, Barack Obama, and he's not gonna be able to get away with as much as prior presidents have. I suppose we are only allowed to evolve under Republican presidents, right?