# Why SPECIFICALLY do Republicans hate Obama? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181 "2010-09-09T14:33:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/81 "2010-09-10T15:06:43Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > I think it would be fair to suggest that he brought that on himself (to a degree) with his “clinging to guns and religion” comment during the campaign. > > It may have been a dumb thing to say in public, but was he wrong? Doesn’t matter - it was an arrogant, shitty thing to say. If he wants to fight a “guns and religion” culture, he did it exactly the wrong way. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/82 "2010-09-10T15:08:34Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > I think it would be fair to suggest that he brought that on himself (to a degree) with his “clinging to guns and religion” comment during the campaign. > > It may have been a dumb thing to say in public, but was he wrong? Of course not. He was absolutely right. > [@Sateryn76](#): > > I have a real issue with the people he’s surrounded himself with, which is particularly important to me since he has no real executive experience, and very limited experience with the “real world” as an adult. So, instead of filling his cabinet with a variety of people with a variety of experiences, he’s hired intellectuals and academics across the board. Other than Steven Chu, which of Obama’s cabinet members would you describe as an “intellectual” (when did that become a bad thing?) or “academic”? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/83 "2010-09-10T15:52:09Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > When the bill was passed we were repeatedly told how much it was going to reduce health care costs. Every CBO report that has come out since then has “readjusted” those figures upward. As in, “Oops, sorry, we F’ed that up.” Too Bad, So Sad… Plus, show me one example of a government entitlement program that has come even close to operating within the expected costs estimates. You are changing the conversation. What I said is that the Health Care Reform **may** save the government money. You know, reduce deficits, cut government spending. I said nothing about healthcare costs, the effectiveness of the government to enact entitlement programs, or anything else. I think you and I would probably agree on many things in this area, but that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is how much “ObamaCare” is going to cost the government and whether those costs will be offset by savings due to the fact that everybody is going to be forced to have insurance. You can disrespect other aspects of this bill all you want, but you are wrong about the cost to the government. Oh, and just a quick question, back in the 90s when Mrs. Clinton unveiled her Health care reform plan and the Republicans unveiled the plan they thought would work better, did you like the Republican plan? Be honest now. > [@flickster](#): > > Well, I have about as much faith in Reuters and the World Bank as you have in Fox. > As for the declining tax receipts/revenue, if the Administrations policies had worked as laid out, this would not have happened. Read more closely, I never disrespected Fox News (that was someone else), I said that their article was disingenuous in comparing the deficits over the last several years as a method of comparing the costs of the wars to the stimulus. I provided evidence based on a CBO report that the costs of the wars were much higher than the Health Care bill. If you don’t trust the news articles, you can just read the CBO report [here](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf). But be careful, the CBO is a bed of partisan liberal ideology just like the World Bank. :rolleyes: > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > That’s somewhat deceptive - this random blogger you linked to qualifies it with “\*if the U.S. Congress now sticks to PAYGO–as it did during the Clinton years[3/4 of which had a Republican House, something he somehow failed to mention, huh, nope, no partisanship there! - Una]–and doesn’t pass new programs and amendments to old programs that add to the deficit.” > > What are the odds of that happening? Not very good. To quote myself again: > [@Will the Republicans obstruct the Russian treaty?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-republicans-obstruct-the-russian-treaty/533995/43): > > Finally, regarding your opinion that President Obama and the Democrats are not interested in saving money, I think you are incorrect and I think you need to provide a cite. At least the Democrats have tried to institute paygo polices, first with the[Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1990) (Democratic House and Senate, signed by President Bush breaking his campaign promise of no-new-taxes), then by [Deficit Reduction Act of 1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993) (Democratic House, Senate and Executive) in a party line vote. These policies were continued by the Republicans in 1997 with the [Balanced Budget Act of 1997](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Act_of_1997), but allowed to lapse in 2002 with the Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Executive. When the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate, they made it a priority to reintroduce the pay as you go policies and made it a standing rule in the house (see page 36 of [Rules of the House of Representatives, 110th Congress](http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf) (note: pdf file)). They did renege on these rules as the recession got worse and they needed to pass [President Bush’s 150 Billion Dollar Stimulus Package](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008). The rule was modified by the 111th congress to have an emergency exemption, which allowed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Obama. Since then, President Obama signed the [Statutory Pay as You Go Act of 2010](http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/documents/2010/FiledStatutoryPaygoAmendment.pdf) which passed on a party line vote. So, how about you show me how the Republicans are more interested in saving money than the Democrats, because I don’t buy it. The Democratically controlled House and Senate first established PAYGO rules in 1990 in a Bipartisan effort with the Republicans and it was signed by President Bush (breaking his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes”). In 93’ these policies were continued by the Democrats in a **party line vote** ; not a single Republican Voted for it. In 97’ the Republican controlled house and Senate continued the policies in a bipartisan fashion. In 2002 the Republican controlled house and Senate scrapped the rules so they could pass the Medicare Drug Benefit. So to sum up, I don’t think the Democrats are all that when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but the meme that the Republicans are better is pure bullshit. Regarding the PAYGO rules, you ask what are the odds of them following the rules, well they need to either pass an exemption or declare and emergency to break them, what are the odds of that? Your guess is as good as mine, but I do applaude the fact that they instituted the rules, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/84 "2010-09-10T16:42:18Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > I was a proposing a reason why a Republican or any other kind of American could have a perfectly reasonable motive to think Obama had been doing a less than smashing job at it, but the fight thing sounds more fun. Anyway I hope the party was fun and you like your Chinese bric-a-brac. If you get Sarah to move to NY then perhaps you can convince the Russians to take Alaska back as payment for some of the loans. As someone already pointed out, the problems you cite were created by Obama’s predecessors. Your reasoning follows the theme of this thread, wing-nuts blaming Obama for the problems created by their own political philosophy. Where are you from anyway? There is no relationship between Sarah Palin and NY. Did you mean Washington DC? Russia does hold a note on 3.2% of our debt, but thats hardly a consideration in the overall problem. The Chinese bric-a-brac is a problem though. It is generally of lower quality than the bric-a-brac we produced here, or even that imported from other countries. Let me clear up a few matters for you: We are American citizens and can call the president any name we feel like, but you will address him as Mr. Obama in the future. The office of president is the singular embodiment of the will of the greatest nation on earth now and forever, and you will show due deference. You may however refer to Sarah Palin as ‘that idiot’, because she doesn’t actually count. Well not past 10 anyway. And we will continue to enjoy the party, because we throw the best parties. Sometimes for entertainment we have firework displays, also called ‘shock and awe’. If you don’t like that, your country could be the next location for our entertainment. Lest your feelings of superiority overwhelm you, remember that the world’s largest air force is the US Air Force. And the second largest is the US Navy. That’s right, our boats have more planes than your whole country. Don’t mistake our intramural disputes for true division. We are one nation, and if you piss us off, we will stomp on you. It’s been very nice discussing this matter with you. Perhaps you could tell us about your country and you political situation there. Many people on this board are interested in the international perspective on world economic conditions. Thank you. And have a nice day.🆒 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/85 "2010-09-10T16:44:06Z")
> [@elninost0rm](#): > > **Machiavelli** anyone? No thanks, I already ate. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/86 "2010-09-10T16:46:56Z")
**TriPolar** , tone it down. **Rune** can also call Barack Obama any name he feels like (within SDMB rules) because he’s a person posting anonymously on the internet. So can anybody else here. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/87 "2010-09-10T16:48:38Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > He isn’t a random blogger, he’s one of the top economics bloggers, a guy with a track record of being very accurate and a former Clinton-era Treasury official. His blog is one of the most trafficked economics blogs on the net : > > [Business Blog Rankings: Trumped by Krugman & Sorkin! - The Big Picture](http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/business-blog-rankings-trumped-by-krugman-sorkin/) I’m sorry, I’m sort of laughing my ass off here - since when did bloggers become respected peer-reviewed sources of factual information? I know blogs are “teh kewl” and all among non-scientists, but seriously, they’re the tool of the slipshod researcher to rely upon, and I say this having myself been guilty of relying too much on one or the other blog in the past when I’ve been lazy. Real research does not happen in or about blogs. If I presented a technical paper at a conference and listed a blog in my references, I would be hooted off the stage, let alone the fact it would be rejected for publication. He’s just some guy preaching from his online pulpit. Even if he had some credence it’s a sample size of one. That’s a non-partisan statement. > [@](#): > > And it was the Democrats who put teeth in PAYGO and used it to turn a record budget deficit into a record surplus. It was the GOP congress who under Bush scrapped PAYGO and went on the biggest unfunded spending spree in history. Um…didn’t that little “9/11” bugaboo and two freaking wars impact that? Just an itsy-bitsy bit? A smidge? A trifle? Two memes on this message board which I wish would really die out are: 1. Democrats were SOLELY responsible for the Clinton-era balanced budget. 2. Bush and the Republicans skyrocketed the deficit and 9/11 and two wars had NOTHING to do with it. > [@](#): > > No paritsanship there, eh? So you can see he’s got an actual factual basis for questioning whether the GOP will stick to PAYGO. They already scrapped it once and voted en bloc to stop it being reintroduced. I didn’t say there was no partisanship, nor that Republicans did not obstruct that, nor that they were not being stupid. Unless you want to post a link showing where I did. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/88 "2010-09-10T16:49:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, if he had pointed out the years as years, like “1990-95” that would have been non-partisan and kosher, but he said “Clinton years”, so it isn’t? Huh? 3/4 of the Clinton years had a Republican House. How much of the 1990-1995 years did? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/89 "2010-09-10T16:55:55Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > The Democratically controlled House and Senate first established PAYGO rules in 1990 in a Bipartisan effort with the Republicans and it was signed by President Bush (breaking his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes”). In 93’ these policies were continued by the Democrats in a **party line vote** ; not a single Republican Voted for it. In 97’ the Republican controlled house and Senate continued the policies in a bipartisan fashion. In 2002 the Republican controlled house and Senate scrapped the rules so they could pass the Medicare Drug Benefit. So to sum up, I don’t think the Democrats are all that when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but the meme that the Republicans are better is pure bullshit. Regarding the PAYGO rules, you ask what are the odds of them following the rules, well they need to either pass an exemption or declare and emergency to break them, what are the odds of that? Your guess is as good as mine, but I do applaude the fact that they instituted the rules, don’t you? Let me clear here, since folks aren’t paying attention yet again - I don’t assert that EITHER party is being fiscally responsible with respect to the deficit or debt. If there were no trillion-dollar wars during the Bush era, no 9/11, what might have happened with the budget then? And the Republicans of 1997 were unfortunately a better sort, or at least behaving better, than those of the mid-2000’s. They were a big, big disappointment to me. The wars should have been paid for with tax increases. “America goes to war” my ass - “America” engaged in a McMansion-buying housing bubble like a drunken monkey with a bag full of bananas in a monkey whorehouse, while the Republican Congress mortgaged our future even further. The wars should have been PAYGO or not done at all. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/90 "2010-09-10T17:00:44Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Um…didn’t that little “9/11” bugaboo and two freaking wars impact that? Just an itsy-bitsy bit? A smidge? A trifle? Two memes on this message board which I wish would really die out are: > > 1. Democrats were SOLELY responsible for the Clinton-era balanced budget. > 2. Bush and the Republicans skyrocketed the deficit and 9/11 and two wars had NOTHING to do with it. I am highly dubious that anyone has ever suggested that “two wars” had nothing to do with the Bush-era deficit. I think you may be confused because you appear to be under the impression that Bush is not entirely to blame for the more expensive of those two wars. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/91 "2010-09-10T17:02:57Z")
My bad, poorly phrased. I meant that if I merely used years in the numerative context, as in, say, 1860-1867, that would be ok, but since I said “Clinton years” its not. Like you think that the writers calling them the “Clinton years” bestows an implied approval. As for this: > [@](#): > > 1. Bush and the Republicans skyrocketed the deficit and 9/11 and two wars had NOTHING to do with it. I don’t directly hold Bush responsible for 9/11, and arguably the incursion into Afghanistan was a result of nationwide, unanimous hysteria, so that’s a wash. That other war, though, charged entirely to our national credit card…yeah, I definitely put that on their slate. Mostly on Bush, since he was the alpha lemming and led the charge. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/92 "2010-09-10T17:12:53Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > flickster, you know that there has not been a Republican President that decreased the debt as a percentage of GDP since President Nixon and there has not been a Democratic President that has increased it since President Roosevelt ([Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg)). Party of fiscal responsibility indeed. If you want to see who was in control of the house and senate during these periods, we can do that too… It is significant that Nixon was the last Republican POTUS elected before movement conservatism took control of the GOP. Apparently, movement conservatism does not equate to fiscal conservatism. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/93 "2010-09-10T17:22:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I am highly dubious that anyone has ever suggested that “two wars” had nothing to do with the Bush-era deficit. No, they suggest it via omission. “Bush skyrocketed the deficit” is a bullshit statement on two levels. > [@](#): > > I think you may be confused because you appear to be under the impression that Bush is not entirely to blame for the more expensive of those two wars. AFAIK Bush could not unilaterally commit the funds for the wars. Did the Constitution change or something? And where was Pelosi, again? Didn’t she campaign, right before she became Speaker, that she WOULD stop the wars? Was I mistaken and she never said or even implied such? How’d that work out? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/94 "2010-09-10T17:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > And it was the Democrats who put teeth in PAYGO and used it to turn a record budget deficit into a record surplus. Refresh my memory - which party controlled Congress the last time the budget was balanced? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/95 "2010-09-10T17:48:25Z")
OK, I am a Republican (“Hi Algher”). I don’t hate Obama, nor do most of the Republicans that I interact with. Then again, I stick to perhaps a more informed and genteel set rather than the frothing-at-the-mouth folks who are necessary in any get-out-the-vote drive. In other words, most of us are “fine” with him in general, and our opposition is due to standard differences in how we see things. The health care bill is crap. It is too big, too complicated, and does not fix our root problems of employer based coverage (part of the system thanks to FDR and WWII price controls) and coverage for those with certain long-term illnesses if they fall off of a plan (endemic to a profit-based risk-sharing system with individual buy-in). The bailouts of the banks (and others) was bad, IMHO. I would have let more of them crash. Instead, we seem to have created a system where the big banks could buy out little banks thanks to Fed money and Fed arm-twisting. I would have let more companies go under - but I actually believe in cut-throat capitalism. I am HAPPY that Obama is continuing the path of getting out of Iraq. I hope he continues that. I am HAPPY that Obama listened to his military and is letting them ramp up some pressure in Afghanistan. I hope that he can find a way out of there. After that, most of it remains to be seen. We put up a crap candidate, and we deserved our ass-kicking in the last election. We “deserve” to get back some seats only because the Democrats haven’t solved all of the nation’s problems. The electorate is pissed, scared, nervous and cranky and will grab onto whoever promises them SOMETHING to make it all better (sounds like my kids when they were toddlers). Hatred is reserved for those that truly go over the line. If I wanted to hate a politician, it would have to be for something that is truly “theirs” that also could be said to have done lasting harm to the nation’s interests (as defined by me, of course): If I wanted to hate a President, I only have two at this time: LBJ for Vietnam. Bush Junior for the Iraq War and squandering our control of the House and Senate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/96 "2010-09-10T17:57:44Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > AFAIK Bush could not unilaterally commit the funds for the wars. Did the Constitution change or something? Actually, that’s what it looks like. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/97 "2010-09-10T17:59:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **TriPolar** , tone it down. **Rune** can also call Barack Obama any name he feels like (within SDMB rules) because he’s a person posting anonymously on the internet. So can anybody else here. Sorry, I’ll make the facetious quality of such remarks more apparent in the future. Rune, all in fun. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/98 "2010-09-10T18:03:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > > > AFAIK Bush could not unilaterally commit the funds for the wars. Did the Constitution change or something? > > Actually, that’s what it looks like. Nonsense - the House and Senate went along with Bush’s crap. They voted for the war (before voting against), and then voted for continued funding rather than be seen as anti-troop. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/99 "2010-09-10T18:03:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > > > AFAIK Bush could not unilaterally commit the funds for the wars. Did the Constitution change or something? > > Actually, that’s what it looks like. Una has an excellent point there when the issue of ‘declaration of war’ comes up. The money for the wars was allocated by congress for that purpose. That is more substantive than a bill that just stamps the words ‘Declaration of War’ at the top. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181/100 "2010-09-10T18:08:46Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > > [@L. G. Butts](#): > > > > The Democratically controlled House and Senate first established PAYGO rules in 1990 in a Bipartisan effort with the Republicans and it was signed by President Bush (breaking his pledge “Read my lips, no new taxes”). In 93’ these policies were continued by the Democrats in a **party line vote** ; not a single Republican Voted for it. In 97’ the Republican controlled house and Senate continued the policies in a bipartisan fashion. In 2002 the Republican controlled house and Senate scrapped the rules so they could pass the Medicare Drug Benefit. So to sum up, I don’t think the Democrats are all that when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but the meme that the Republicans are better is pure bullshit. Regarding the PAYGO rules, you ask what are the odds of them following the rules, well they need to either pass an exemption or declare and emergency to break them, what are the odds of that? Your guess is as good as mine, but I do applaude the fact that they instituted the rules, don’t you? > > Let me clear here, since folks aren’t paying attention yet again - I don’t assert that EITHER party is being fiscally responsible with respect to the deficit or debt. If there were no trillion-dollar wars during the Bush era, no 9/11, what might have happened with the budget then? > > And the Republicans of 1997 were unfortunately a better sort, or at least behaving better, than those of the mid-2000’s. They were a big, big disappointment to me. The wars should have been paid for with tax increases. “America goes to war” my ass - “America” engaged in a McMansion-buying housing bubble like a drunken monkey with a bag full of bananas in a monkey whorehouse, while the Republican Congress mortgaged our future even further. The wars should have been PAYGO or not done at all. Heh, I like your post and agree with pretty much everything you say. Regarding what would have happened to the Budget without 9/11, I believe that domestic spending under President Bush increased dramatically. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to do some proper research today but I can offer you these choice quotes from the [spending section](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Spending) of Wikipedia’s article on the [Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration) (I know, not the best source): [QUOTE=Wikipedia] President Bush expanded public spending by 70 percent, more than double the increase under President Clinton. Bush was the first president in 176 years to continue an entire term without vetoing any legislation. [/QUOTE] and [QUOTE=Wikipedia] Federal spending in constant dollars increased under Bush by 26% in his first four and a half years. Non-defense spending increased 18% in that time. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-specifically-do-republicans-hate-obama/553181.md?page=6)