Well, Rush, considering that too many members of the GOP went along with massive government spending and the TARP bailout, if the GOP gets back into power and reverts to its Beltway nonsense, the protestors WILL be getting after Republicans in droves.
I created this for a poster a little while back:
In fairness, there really was not much to get mad at Repubs as far as the spending went...
Bushs tax cuts caused the majority of the deficit, but it did what was intended, getting us out of recession. At least he did the right thing by cutting taxes instead of doing a trillion dollar porkulus.
Also, Bush never had more than 18% of the budget to cut. The rest was defense, interest on the debt, and entitlements. What cuts he asked for, were mostly blocked by the Democrats, although he did get some budget cuts every year except the last two IIRC (even though the budget increased).
Yes, he did increase spending on defense, but it was badly needed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost, but they were only about 5% of the budget annually. He also was responsible for NCLB and Medicare part D, but both have been successes. NCLB forced teachers to prove they were educating kids (that is why teachers to a person hate NCLB), and Medicare part D has come in 40% under budget. Both were campaign promises that he kept, and both were far less expensive than the Democrats proposals.
For the last three months of his term, he believed he had no choice but to bailout the financials with TARP. He also had to work with Pelosi to get anything passed at all. I was not happy with the authorization to bail out Wall Street, but it worked. It prevented a catastrophe. We didnt know at the time of the $550 billion dollar run on our money markets, but the President did. FWIW, of the 700 billion authorized, there is about 330 billion outstanding, and more will be paid back. He believed he had no choice, and I agree. I understand though, why many do not.
When you add in the challenges from Enron and the dotcom bust, 9/11, all of the natural disasters under his term (and there were a bunch of them...five hurricanes including Katrina in 2005 alone), and the war on terror, and the financial collapse, GWB and the Republicans actually were conservative in their spending, even though the debt doubled in eight years (5 Trillion).
In fact, because of GWBs business friendly policies of holding down taxes and regulations, our GDP grew rapidly enough to keep government spending in the 18.5-20.5% of the GDP, below average for the last thirty years. If not for the real estate collapse, our budget would have been balanced in 2008...it almost made it in 2007. The debt to GDP held steady at about 60% of GDP, about the same as 1990-1996.
It is mostly the paulites that keep tagging GWB as such a huge spender, but they are wrong. They discount the fact that for six years Democrats voted as a block against everything Delay and Bush tried to do with the budget, and the incredible demands on the government in the same time period.
On the other hand, Obamas spending (just in the budget) may exceed 35% of GDP. He may well double the debt in his first term (10 trillion). There really is no comparison between the massive spending we are seeing now, and the previous administrations. Unfortunately, Republicans voting as a block cannot affect Obamas budgets, as the Dems (with the help of a few RINOs) could GWBs.
Tom Delay told conservatives that Republicans did the best they could, and it was the truth. With Obama and the Democrats having shown their true colors on spending the last three years, it is time to quit trying to paint GWB and the Republicans spending as somehow the same. It wasnt, and it is easy to prove. A good example is conservatives throwing Republicans under the bus for $44 billion in earmarks, about 2% of the budget in 2005. In place of them, we have Pelosi who wont even talk about earmarks, and a porkulus bill that will spend $300 billion on exactly the same type of projects. 44 billion was not an exorbitant amount, it was just presented that way as a Democrat talking point.
Certainly spending was far higher than what libertarians would prefer, but now we need to acknowledge the realities of the Bush Administrations fiscal policy.
By the way, Im not picking on you particularly, but your theme keeps coming up, and it only helps Obama cover the staggering amount of spending he and the Dems are doing, spending that will destroy our country.
I have the charts and links to back everything up I have said in this post, so this is not just BS! (Sorry for the long post!)
Bushs tax cuts caused the majority of the deficit,
Their conclusions were totally wrong as proven by the explosion in revenue in 2005-2008, but their numbers on the revenue loss until 2004 are valid.
although he did get some budget cuts every year except the last two
I couldn't find one link that lists them all, but most are in the google search.
he did increase spending on defense, but it was badly needed
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost, but they were only about 5% of the budget annually.
897,000,000,000 war cost divided by 20,359,000,000,000 budgets from 2002-2009= 4.4%
Medicare part D has come in 40% under budget.
We didnt know at the time of the $550 billion dollar run on our money markets,
there is about 330 billion outstanding, and more will be paid back
My bad, its 371 billion, not 330 billion.
even though the debt doubled in eight years (increase of 5 Trillion).
Notice it tripled under Reagan, and nearly doubled under Clinton.
our GDP grew rapidly enough to keep government spending in the 18.5-20.5% of the GDP,
If not for the real estate collapse, our budget would have been balanced in 2008
The debt to GDP held steady at about 60% of GDP, about the same as 1990-1996.
There really is no comparison between the massive spending we are seeing now, and the previous administrations.
From his comments, I kinda think Rush is mainly concerned about splitting the Pub vote by creating a third party movement.