Bush just didn't do anything to stop them. He allowed the earmarks and pork spending to grow. And he paid the price for it at the polls. His approval rating didn't drop be Democrats didn't like him, hell, they never liked him. His poll numbers dropped when he lost the conservative Republicans and conservative independents who didn't like is fiscal policies.

The media went to great pains to blame Bush for the deficit, even though Congress was the main culprit, both democrat and republican. I'm seeing now the media going to the same great pains to insulate Obama, and blame Congress. And Obama is playing his part, by claiming to be worried about the deficit, while his lackies, Nancy and Harry are given free reign to spend like fools.

Bush never lost "conservative republicans". In fact, by the end of his term, they were the only ones still supporting him. Of course, post-Bush revisionism is to claim that he wasn't "conservative enough", yet it was those "conservative republicans" in Congress who passed on of those pork-barrell spending plans that Bush failed to stop. They spent money like fools and Bush encouraged them by insisting that they keep his pet invasion off the books.

Sorry, but the so-called "conservative republicans" no longer have any credibility on the issue of fiscal responsibility.

Yes, let's remember that the majority of Republicans now seem to care about cutting costs only when it comes to programs they disfavor. Ted Stevens anyone?

It was Bush and the Republicans sheep who put is into this mess.

$200 Billion/year for tax cuts for those making over $250K
$300 Billion/year for the wars
$200 Billion/year in additional interest on the national debt

That's an additional $700 Billion / year in discretionary spending. Total discretionary spending under Clinton was just over $1 Trillion annually. In two horrible decisions, Bush essentially DOUBLED the cost of the federal government.

Sure, pork never looks good. However, wasting a couple hundred million is nothing compared to blowing through most of a trillion.

Greatbear452:

Bush never lost "conservative republicans". In fact, by the end of his term, they were the only ones still supporting him. Of course, post-Bush revisionism is to claim that he wasn't "conservative enough", yet it was those "conservative republicans" in Congress who passed on of those pork-barrell spending plans that Bush failed to stop. They spent money like fools and Bush encouraged them by insisting that they keep his pet invasion off the books.

Sorry, but the so-called "conservative republicans" no longer have any credibility on the issue of fiscal responsibility.

Listen to the Bear! Suddenly, the airwaves (and the Fray) are full of rightwing Republicans who knew all along Bush was "no conservative" and that his policies were so wrong. Maybe it's just me, but I cannot recall even one Republican politician, rightwing media pundit, or self-described Conservative Frayster who was able to find any flaw whatever with Bush for the past EIGHT YEARS. Now, the same crowd has instantly become born-again Bush critics!

And they wonder why they're not taken seriously!

I think this points out a common view that is going to be costly in the end. We are jacking up the tax on those who pay the majority of the taxes as it is.

These people are not going to stop making money because of the tax but the ones who will ultimately pay for the increase are not those who are having their taxes increased. While it sound good to stick it to those who have more money it disregarded one other fact which is that they are in the top percentages of earners because they provide a service that can be done by few others.

When their cost of going to work goes up, they will demand a higher fee to show up. It will face little resistance because every one else that does what they do will be getting the same increase. When the price of gas goes up every company raises the price at the pump. Same principle.

So what is the result of this tax increase on a micro level. the company they work for either cuts costs in other areas which usually means labor, or they raise the price of their products. So sticking it to the man is just going to turn around and kick the butts of those on the lower end of the income scale.

In addition, most of these new programs are going to benefit those who make less. When did we as a society expect that we should have to pay less to get more. When the landlord does a major upgrade to your apartment I am sure you would know a rent increase is on the way. Why are we expecting to get more and substantially more for some and have someone else pay for it.

I probably have zero chance of ever being part of the >250K tax increase but I think it is at its core, unfair and in reality it is a total scam being pulled on the less informed and less educated to ensure servitude to the government.

I do not believe that a true conservative republican could have remained loyal to Bush. In no way did he represent what they stand for and if they supported him at all it was because the alternative was even worse.

However, I think passing off the arguments against big government and big deficits because many did not howl about it when Bush was in office is missing the point.

The issue is big government and big government deficits. Do you believe they will be good for this country. If being wrong about W discounts anything said currently about what is going on means that there will be very few people able to give an opinion. W was very popular for a time and while it is hard to believe now, his war even in Iraq was very popular to more people than not.

Now if a Rep says look at how good W was at being fiscally conservative and how Obama is destroying his fine record, well those people are delusional. W destroyed all the good things that Clinton did and was more loose with the purse strings than Clinton the democrat. I know the congress has a lot to do with what is spent so it is not all one persons fault but W was a disaster and now many Obama supporters use his idiocy to justify their own.

Bush spent carelessly so why should you question Obama when he spends carelessly. When is someone going to shout out the old bridge saying that every mother on earth must have said hundreds of times.

We need to do what is right and not do things with the justification that W did it too. As a nation we really are acting like little children and if I recall Lord of the Pigs well, letting children run things will not end well.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the world actually works.

I work with a lot of people who are in the over 250K limit, and guess what - they already charge as much as they possibly can for their services. Just because their living expenses go up doesn't mean that they'll be able to immediately pass through their costs to everyone else. Prices in most industries tend to rise in unison because consumers are at least bright enough to recognize some degree of cost differentials.

To illustrate - Charmin costs, say, 10% more than the generic equivalent. Taxes on the CEO and other senior executives at Charmin rise by 3% on income received over $250,000. Assume that average pay for the executives in this category is $500,000 (just to have an easy number to use). The actual increase in taxes paid by these senior executives would be 1.5% of total income. They can't raise the price on Charmin products by 1.5% to offset this increase unless (a) they know that the increase in price will not result in a corresponding decrease in sales sufficient to wipe out the benefits of a price increase or (b) they know the generic competitor is going to raise prices as well. (a) is unlikely to be true because if it were, they would already have raised the price prior to the tax increase. (b) might happen, but it's illegal for Charmin to discuss the possibility of (b) with the generic competitor prior to making the change. They can't make the change in reliance on (b) until after the generic competitor makes its change, otherwise the generic competitor will not make the change, its sales will increase, and Charmin will lose out. The generic competitor, however, is making the same calculation under the same conditions. Where there is easily measured side-by-side competition, it's reasonable to expect that prices will hold steady rather than immediately increase to absorb a slight rise in cost (at least in the short term - prices might slowly rise over time, but they'll do that anyway for the reasons previously discussed).

The same analysis applies to the idea of cutting jobs to offset the heightened cost of living to senior executives. Generally speaking, most companies don't have a lot of fat in their staffing. It's actually unusual for a company to employ more people than they need to, which is why cutting staff is often a very stupid way for a company to save money. It's a short term savings, but usually hurts productivity in the long term. If a company has a hundred workers that it doesn't need, it should be laying them off regardless of the presence or absence of a tax increase. So saying that tax increases will lead to mass layoffs seems suspect. Of course, if anyone has any evidence of an actual connection between the two (other than theoretical work by the Chicago school of economics), I'd love to see it.

Also note that the increase in taxes of 1.5% of total compensation for senior executives should be relatively miniscule compared to the overall costs of production in the above-scenario. Unless senior executive compensation constitutes a major portion of the cost of a product, minor changes in cost of living for senior executives should have very limited impact on the cost of the finished product if senior executive compensation is 10% of the cost of production (which seems high to me), then the price of the product would only need to be raised 0.15% to offset the increase. Most of the senior executives, moreover, are not in a position where they can just raise their own compensation willy-nilly.

This line of argument (that tax increases on the wealthy only really hurt the poor) has been a very successful talking point for the anti-tax crowd, but it's never seemed to make much sense. Where a company can cut costs or increase prices, they will do so even without an increase in taxes. While an increase in taxes might have a theoretical effect on profitability sufficient to drive marginal operations out of business, those businesses probably shouldn't be operating anyway. While there might be some inflationary pressure caused by increasing taxes, I haven't seen it in my lifetime and inflation is not currently a major concern.

The issue is big government and big government deficits. Do you believe they will be good for this country. If being wrong about W discounts anything said currently about what is going on means that there will be very few people able to give an opinion. W was very popular for a time and while it is hard to believe now, his war even in Iraq was very popular to more people than not.

What hurts their credibility is that all of these so-called conservative republicans threw our their supposed belief in small government and small spending in order to give Bush their unconditional support on everything. Small government? Please, they created DHS, the biggest federal agency ever conceived. And, while they were the majority party they loaded up their districts with just as much pork as the democrats did. Lest anyone has forgotten, the most famous pork barrell project of the last ten years, the bridge to no where, was the pet project of a so-called conservative (and, incidentally, now indicted on corruption charges) republican who was even going to name the bridge after himself. And yes, so-called conservative republican Sarah Palin was for the bridge before she was against and she kept the money even after the project was killed.

So, if anyone can point to any incident during the past decade where these so-called conservative republicans did anything to limit government spending, cut the size of government, or even so much as chastised Bush for not being "conservative enough", please let me know.

Until then, zero credibility.

If you think that anyone in DC has any credibility I really would like to hear who they might be. I think there are a few but very few, Ron Paul comes to mind but I think the logic that the republicans were wasteful so the Dem's can be wasteful too is just silly.

The problems we have now are not going to get better with what is going on because I do not believe that anyone is saying what really needs to be done. Instead they are taking up sides and just tossing out solutions that fit the side they are on. Of course now it really is hard to tell because both sides prefer to pander than present solutions that might make someone upset.

I never said the democrats have any credibility on the issue of fiscal responsibility either. I was merely replying to the original poster's claim that the so-called conservative republicans were upset at Bush for not being fiscally responsible.

The only difference between the two sides right now is that the democrats are actually putting ideas on the table while republicans are just saying that they oppose anything the democrats come up with. They have no ideas, just opposition. If the democrats were to propose a law making it illegal to eat live puppies, the republicans would immediately oppose it out of reflex. They wouldn't offer up any other alternatives to the problem of eating live puppies, they would just oppose the bill because it was an idea from the democrats.

Perhaps I do yetagain but I think I understand more than you give me credit for. A lot of those people who are going to be hit by the tax are business owners who are going to make sure they get their fair share if their business is doing well. But when costs go up across the board and I think it is fair to say that those who are paid >250K are a much scarcer resource than those making 30K so they are in a much better position to take their services to those who are willing to pay for it.

I am not saying it is a significant part of what a product costs but it is a part and if you every watch the stock market you might notice that it is very important that companies meet their margins. You might also notice that the wages of top executives has gotten crazy but if you want one of the top dogs you have to pay. Same in sports. So if a company wants a good team they will pay for it because they believe that it will pay back in the end.

Go to a ball game and tell me if they have decided to pay the players less so that the beer and hot dog prices can stay down?

There are two sides to every buy/sell negotiation and the tax increase is not an astounding amount but once again supporters of Obama only want the law of supply and demand to work when it is in their favor. Remember a small drop in gas prices from the tax holiday was going to make us drive around all day because we are saving a few cents on a gallon of gas and result in the total destruction of our planet?

For a sub chapter S corp the increase in tax comes right out of their bottom line. I guess you figure those companies will just take it on the chin. No big deal.

There are lots of factors to consider, far too many to go over them here but an increase in tax will trickle down eventually especially when it affects a resource that obviously is in demand.

As they say they represent the top 2 percent of all wage earners. I think a good share of them have the ability to demand more pay or get it somewhere else. A local group of doctors did not get what they wanted from a hospital and they picked up and went else where. Think they had trouble finding a better deal.

Even if I totally accept what you say, I still think the whole concept is almost punitive and class warfare. I think if we have problems we all should pay a price. This those guys get punished and these guys get rewarded is not good. I just do not think it is fair and once again we as a country are rewarding the wrong things. The fact that I live a tougher life because I chose not to kill my self to get into the upper income levels is just the way it is. They chose to do what was needed to get there and then they get hammered.

Take baseball, would you support taking away the HR's from the leading hitter to give them to the worst hitter so that he can say he has some HR's on his record. Lets cap actor and athlete wages so those starting out or those who are just not that good can make more than they do now.

The issue is big government and big government deficits. Do you believe they will be good for this country.

Yes. In the time of a major recession when the prime interest rate is pushing the zero-bound and there is no money flowing in the economy, deficit spending is good for the country. Especially if its used to invest in things that will improve the health of our economy and society later on- renewable energy, infrastructure, education, health care reform, research, transportation, etc. Exactly the kind of things that Obama is proposing.

Greatbear I think that I agree with you although perhaps not expressing it well. I love your analogy and think that it does go both ways though. What we really need is someone who is looking and actually considering both sides. I do not think you have that. Throw in a boat load of hypocrisy and you have DC.

The Reps crying about the last spending bill having pork in it when a good deal of that pork is their own too. It just makes my head want to fly off its shoulders when I hear them make these comments that are so absurd that I wonder how they have the guts to even say them. But the media lets it go because no matter which side the media supports they cannot point these things out because of the payback when the other side points out how ridiculous their side is.

They take sides, raise arguments but it really is rare that anyone goes even a tiny bit beneath the surface. It is my view that until the voters punish those who only take sides this country is going to have worse problems than it has now.

When I have time, I often really dig into the details of an issue and every time it is clear that neither side is putting any effort into coming up with an optimal solution. I guess my point of opposition to your comment is that I think they both are not listening. The reps put up an alternative bill and it did not get considered even though it would have cost far less. There are many examples where Pelosi is going to do it her way and that is that. So maybe the Dem's are a little bit more open to new ideas but in my view it is like spitting in the desert hoping to farm there.

Bush DID bust the budget. The invasion of Iraq is one example.

By the way, because the GOP controlled Congress for 6 of Bush's 8 years, conservative Republicans were just as guilty in busting the budget. Don't pretend that they were that concerned about the deficits. The Pew Research did a survey in January 2006 (almost a full year before the GOP lost control of the House). It found that only 45% of Republicans thought that reducing the budget deficits should be top priority of the President. In contrast, 62% of the Democrats thought so.

<link>