Why are Republicans only fiscally responsible when there is a Democratic President?

Let's Assume they were fiscally responsible under Clinton for the sake of argument. What happened under Bush when the GOP had control over everything? Isn't that more the test -- when Republicans weren't just sitting on the sidelines but had complete control?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • rz1971
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    For the same reason democrats are when republicans are in control. (The GOP did not have a super-majority like the democrats did, and under Clinton he had to work with a republican congress, which he did and look how the country began to prosper. When the parties work together, it usually means good things for the entire country.

  • 10 years ago

    I am going to start a political party, its called the "Split Government Party" (or SGP for short). SGP will run no candidates, but, work diligently to make sure the majority of seats in Congress, and the President are of different parties.

    Just to help you regain prospective, the DNC is spending at a rate that makes the GOP look thrifty.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    It would seem we were still doing fairly well until the democrats took over in 2006 and we went into a nose dive. To say the republicans are a spending party when this president has put our great great great great grandkids in debt is a joke!

  • tylor
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Democrats have been greater advantageous via a 6-a million ratio as much as the final completed term. i'm valuable Obama gets the deficit down only like Truman did. Truman easily greater advantageous FDR's huge debt his first 3 hundred and sixty 5 days and ultimately have been given it to bypass down.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    HERE`S A TEST FOR YOU ! Your boys disastrous liberal socialist policies have directly led us into this recession , the Democrats own these 3 year figures ! US unemployment rate in 2006 ("BEFORE" the "democrats" took over Congress in January , 2007 was 4.6%

    US unemployment rate at the end of June 2010 is 9,5% ("3" years "AFTER" the "democrats" took over Congress in January , 2007) .

    What duped you into voting for and supporting the ones` whose policies have increased the US unemployment rate in 3 years by 4.9 % ? ( US Unemployment more than doubled from 2007 to 2010 ) ? Obamanomics ? Compare the "financial responsibility" of the 2 parties here and accept the absolute facts ! You want financial resposibility ? Then ask your boy in the white house WHY his fantastic "Financial Reform Bill" ( that is supposed to save the financial world ) does not include the democrat cash cows of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac ! Who by the way are both together in the RED (Debt) to the tune of over $400 billion ? The American taxpayer pays for this disgrace of a ""Government"" run entity that loses money year in and year out ! So find out WHY are these 2 losers not "Regulated" by Obama`s new "Finance Reform Bill " ?? * One triumph for the United States during the 20th century was that it went from being a nation of largely renters to mostly homeowners. The American dream was made real in picket fences and title deeds.

    The 21st century may look very different, however, once President Obama decides whether taxpayers should continue to support private home purchases – knowing in hindsight how far the housing market has collapsed since 2007 while leaving government with more than $400 billion in debt. That red ink is mainly due to a federal takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the great enablers of the home-buying binge.

    So far Mr. Obama has put off the issue of whether to reduce the federal role in buying a home, preferring instead to wait until the home market further stabilizes and his Treasury Department devises reforms for Fannie and Freddie. In the meantime, he signed legislation Wednesday aimed at reforming other areas of the financial system – but not the public mortgage system.

    Americans must be on guard to prevent government from again creating another housing bubble. This last one burst with little warning, polluting the economy with “toxic” mortgages that spread like the BP oil spill on the Gulf of Mexico.

    They must also be wary of again letting government essentially run a business. Both Fannie and Freddie were created by Congress, given implied guarantees of government backing, and then quotas for selling of mortgages. The result was political bribery by the housing industry to lawmakers in the form of campaign contributions – and more. One mortgage company, Countrywide Financial Corporation, gave discount loans to some key members of Congress and to 153 employees of Fannie Mae.

    The need for Fannie and Freddie to help low-income Americans is over. They were created by Congress decades ago as profitmaking hedge funds to build up an investment market for the buying and selling of mortgages in bundles. But financial markets are now big enough to take on most of that complex role, allowing government to phase out the two institutions.

    For the sake of remaking the US economy, Obama should endorse new and better incentives that entice Americans to put their savings into industries that can compete in global markets.

    Federal incentives for homeownership, while creating jobs in that industry, create an artificial market prone to political meddling by lawmakers on the take from the housing lobby. And, now we learn all too late, homeownership may not create long-term wealth or retirement kitties. Long-term wealth lies in competitive export industries and services.

    Plenty of smart economists are now devising clever schemes for Fannie-lite institutions, claiming safeguards against previous pitfalls. The Treasury Department is due to recommend its reforms to Congress in a few months.

    But any federal institution charged to subsidize homeownership will be prone to political pressures in Congress to lower lending standards so that more people can buy homes. The cycle toward a housing collapse would begin again. And money that might have gone to more productive industries and services would have been wasted.

  • R J
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    What an interesting and racist question, but if would certainly seem so. Too Bad President Obama doesn't pull up the purse strings. Although his is going to cut military like Bill did and who knows. Yes Ronald spend a ton also.

  • 10 years ago

    This chart below shows the real cause of the debt we're in. It's plain as day.

    chin: we're only anti-war when we attack an country that had nothing to do with 9/11. I've wanted to go after Afghanistan since 2001 and I'm fairly Liberal.

  • 10 years ago

    They're never actually fiscally conservative.. they'd just prefer to spend money on defense and starting wars, because they don't want to share their money for the benefit of the poor, who they see as primarily minorities.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Sorry. They had their chance and blew it.

    "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." — George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

  • 10 years ago

    Harding,Coolidge,and Eisenhower were pretty responsible...Although their presidencies were an awful long time ago...

    Source(s): Eschat-forget it.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.