Why Did Republicans Support Massive Federal Spending Under GW Bush? Then Rail against Obama?
I don't Understand this. Why did Republicans stand behind and Support Monster Federal Spending under GW Bush for 8 years? Then Act like If Obama' spend's something to help the Economy, It's Socialism? For 8 years Bush Blew the National Debt out of the Water, with Trillion dollar Deals like " Medicaid Part D" 1.2 Trillion dollars. The Iraq War alone 1+ Trillion , The Bush Tax cuts, Rather they want to Say they Generated Revenue or Not, For every dime we don't account for we have to Barrow from China, and Pay them back with 40% Interest. Bush Doubled the National Debt, and walked away with the Economy In Flames, After all his Investments... And the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars Spent on Upgrading Iraq's Infrastructure? So Then I guess by Republicans It's Ok for Socialism, As long as my Tax Dollars are going to Someone Iraq, but it's not ok to help some Poor american's who are starving to death? Because they got Laid off?
I guess that's the Stark difference between the 2, A democrat would rather his Tax Go to help American's, a Republican would Rather help Iraqis + Israel ?
- 8 years agoFavorite Answer
Sanctimonious, self righteous, & entitled attitude could care less about how much they spend & borrow as long as they get to live like kings until there are no more wealth to redistribute where rationed redistribution are all there is left, like USSR, Cuba, & N. Korea. Increasing spending & the deficit faster & higher above previous admins for which spending of 3 trillion in 8 years becomes 2 to 3 trillion annually & so on, more than previous admins combined, doesn't speak much into the commitment to pay off its creditors loan. The deficit is speeding towards quadrillion, but that would mean that may take $25 million U.S. for $1 Australian dollar, destroying every ones earned savings & wealth like in Zimbabwe were 25 million of their currency is only worth $1 U.S. Dollars, & even worst with the Weimar Republic that eventually lead to True Socialism. Massive debt means massive inflation.
They can tax & spend all the way to 99%, the spending & borrowing will not end cause when it does end no more free money & services. Entitlements are like the childless woman will be willing to have a neighbor or sisters baby cut in half just so neither of them will have a baby to raise in the end. Basically if it's not your earned money & sacrifice who cares how much deeper in debt you get into. The business of self righteous, sanctimonious image is what sustains debt through over indulging entitlements, community reinvestment act, sub prime loans, over spending, debt ceiling increase, subsidies, grants, foreign aid, & nation building is to flood the world with currency created through debt. Debasing currency & inflating cost or value of goods & commodities.
When andrew jackson paid off the deficit there were no social entitlement spending.
Everyone detest a mooch who borrows from peter to pay paul, then borrows from paul a larger amount to pay peter or someone else then disappears after everyone is fed up. This is an obvious swindle practiced by so called friends, relatives, co-workers, & acquaintances. This is how entitlements are set up until others are left holding the bag when someone comes to collect.
Many are being spoiled or sombiepied for over indulging entitlements. It's better to be under charitable entitlements than to earn a living. Why would an individual work minimum wage just to have his/her income deducted for health-care coverage, Social Security, FICA, & State tax while an individual on welfare receives slightly more than minimum wage without all the deduction & reduced benefits? Is it not better to sit in the couch all day than having to earn a living? After all, food stamps, spending money, health care, & housing (HUD/Section 8) are provided for by taxpayers.
A recipient can indulge in living like a socialite with affordable things like buying shoes every month or 2 & clothing ranging from 20 to 50 dollars, accumulate about 200 pairs of shoes, & over 500 pairs of clothing, Flat screen TVs, Magazine subscriptions, & gives away slightly used shoes/clothing & sometimes even new ones. Eat past food (large proportions) 5 - 8 times every week to obesity. Some recipients has been on Government assistance for over 15 years yet not of retirement age.
results of socialism:
money As debt:
Welfare doesn't eliminate poverty but sustains & increase it on the backs of business, consumers, blue & white collar workers. It has gone far beyond keeping them from starving, it's never enough for them & want even more. Since When was Leisure's, Luxuries, accessories, electricity, flat screen TV, entertainment, & modern medicine personal transportation was a necessity for survival. Did nature provide all this or did individuals who invested their minds, wealth, & time, created & provided all this. Did these necessities of indulgence existed before the Conquest of the New World, WWI, or WWII. Instead of helping people to be self reliant, people are spoiled into dependency corrupting them to become zombies for handouts adding to the high cost of living. Are they thankful to the rich & middle class who provides for them?, rather arrogantly complains for more. Where's the gratitude? Those they call greedy are more reflective of themselves.
Some or half of those with principles will seek welfare, not because they want to, but it is legally binding & available, empowered not to be ashamed because everybody is on it.Source(s): Welfare recipients wouldn't want to pay taxes, but who does?, not even the incumbent, some appointees, & cronies like GE would like to, and why they would gladly take any deduction they can get. Others work for cash to avoid taxes. reduced benefits. They wan't to get rich but not the way steve jobs or talented, resourceful, skillful, creative, & bright individuals does it. Hey, If you qualify why not? It's not like its your personal savings your dipping into, & way better than living with dignity & self respect like freegans or bushmen. http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=301524 http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=306254 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-pa...
- Mr. SmartypantsLv 78 years ago
it's been crystal clear now for 30 years that Republicans really only care about the budget when they're out of power. Reagan and both Bushes ran as strict budget hawks, but once in office behaved as if deficits simply didn't matter.
Ironically, the ONLY president who made good on the perennial Republican promises of cutting spending, making govt. smaller and cheaper, reducing deficits and getting us on track towards a balanced budget was a Democrat! If Bill Clinton had been president one more year, we would have had a balanced budget. When GW Bush came to office, he simply could not wait to undo all the good work Clinton had done. Almost his first act in office was to call for a big tax cut, just for the richest Americans.
Presidents and congresscritters, they know their power comes from spending. BOTH parties desperately want to spend money to buy votes. They spend it on different things to buy the votes of different demographics, but it's the same thing.
But the Republicans, I think, abdicated their place as The Party of Fiscal Responsibility. Ronald Reagan ran for president for eight years by bashing the national debt, but once in office he TRIPLED the entire pre-existing national debt. GW Bush only doubled the debt, but it was a lot bigger by then. And that nonsense about Obama spending more than any previous president, or even all presidents combined, it's amazing how often you hear that. As if just repeating it over and over could make it true.
- 8 years ago
People change. President Obama has spent way way WAY more than President Bush did in his whole 8 years. Republicans (and other conservatives) have just realized that enough is enough.
And actually, a lot of the key Republicans today were bashing Bush in 2008 for his massive spending, as well.
Hopefully we will all learn from our mistakes :)
- Anonymous8 years ago
Because W Bush cut taxes. I agree. It's stupid. It's like getting a massive cash advance on your credit card then going home to your spouse and saying you got a raise. The average federal taxpayer spent $3260 in ONE YEAR ALONE in interest on the Republican national debt in 2008. That's real money out of our pockets. But we got a tax cut. So we saved money according to the average (average here meaning stupid) voter.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous8 years ago
You're right. But you fail because Republicans and Conservatives arent the same. You just got owned by a guy living in a doublewide
- Daniel FellowsLv 58 years ago
Actually if you asked most Conservatives today, they'd probably tell you they detest the amount of Spending under both Administrations.Source(s): I'm a Conservative
- 8 years ago
Why don't most liberals protest wars when a Democrat takes office? It is typical political hypocrisy.
- ThomasSLv 78 years ago
And it doesn't make sense to escalate failed policies and go on a manic spending spree on China's money.
- Anonymous8 years ago
And Republicans certainly do Not mind help the rich and infamous .
- OutlawcajunLv 78 years ago
We didn't. They weren't listening,
and the left just refuse to admit it.