Bush also did a prescription drug plan that was a financial disaster. However, the Dems wanted something even more expensive so ....
In fact, that's generally true; Repubs overspent, but Dems wanted more. The Repubs weren't fiscally conservative in absolute terms, but they were significantly more so than Dems. Since the alternative to Repubs isn't perfection, but Dems, that's relevant.
As to the financial disaster, it's due to Dems pushing "affordable" housing. The Repub's contribution is that they didn't try very hard to oppose it. (When McCain suggested looking at Fannie and Freddie in 2005/6, he got his teeth kicked in.)
Tax revenues increased under Bush. And fewer paid income taxes. (The poor get a decent return on SS while the rest of us are hosed. The rich don't care because both "contributions" and payouts are capped.)
Assertion, assertion, assertion. What was the vote count on that prescription drug plan disaster, again? How many of those same people, institutions and editorial pages are huge deficit hawks now? What happened to "deficits don't matter"?
You opened this thread saying "yeah but if we figure the calendar this way i can put all of the 2008 stuff on Obama". You advertised that you don't give a crap about reasoned conclusions, you're just going to attempt to twist the facts. You said out loud, "I'm doing this". Deficits don't matter in 2003, they're the most important thing ever in 2010. Whatever.
It's your right, freedom of speech and all that. But I'm not going to take you seriously.
> What was the vote count on that prescription drug plan disaster, again?
It was mostly repubs for and mostly dems against on final passage. The vote to substitute the Dem proposal, which was more expensive, it was mostly Dems for and mostly Repubs against.
Yes, the Repubs passed a monstrosity. The Dems tried to pass something worse. It's unclear how these two facts make the Dems look better than the Repubs.
> How many of those same people, institutions and editorial pages are huge deficit hawks now? What happened to "deficits don't matter"?
One might argue that there's a difference between $100B/year and $100B/month. You're claiming that it's wrong to be concerned about $100B/month yet be okay with $100B/year....
More to the point, I'm not claiming that the Repubs were/are correct. I'm saying that they're bad, but better than Dems on this.
> yeah but if we figure the calendar this way i can put all of the 2008 stuff on Obama
It's a fact that the 2008 budget wasn't passed until after Obama took office. Congressional Dems said that Obama had significant input into that budget. Do you really want to argue that they were lying?
> you're just going to attempt to twist the facts.
Bush also did a prescription drug plan that was a financial disaster. However, the Dems wanted something even more expensive so ....
In fact, that's generally true; Repubs overspent, but Dems wanted more. The Repubs weren't fiscally conservative in absolute terms, but they were significantly more so than Dems. Since the alternative to Repubs isn't perfection, but Dems, that's relevant.
As to the financial disaster, it's due to Dems pushing "affordable" housing. The Repub's contribution is that they didn't try very hard to oppose it. (When McCain suggested looking at Fannie and Freddie in 2005/6, he got his teeth kicked in.)
Tax revenues increased under Bush. And fewer paid income taxes. (The poor get a decent return on SS while the rest of us are hosed. The rich don't care because both "contributions" and payouts are capped.)