Actually ...
It was the Republicans that spent a shitload from 2003-2006. As I always said, we'd be better off as well as
not in Iraq had the Democrats taken back Congress. The amount of pork W. refused to veto, in order to gain support from his own party, is half the problem. Republicans have been big-time socialists, using facist economic models that are not sustainable.
Of course, W. did get handed one of the absolute
shitiest, downward spiral economies in 2001. That right there accounts for a
massive baloon in social spending as well as a
major gut of the income (that double-whammy when people lose their jobs). The rate of change in the deficit/surplus was already set in motion, and when the layoffs started when he wasn't even in a quarter (March 2001), he really got hit.
Then we had 9/11.
People don't remember that reality at the end of 2000. Clinton's worst years were 1993-1994 and then 2000 (largely effects resulting from 1999), but most of the latter did not come about until 2001. At the same time, Clinton had outstanding years from 1995-1998, and cut a lot of spending and non-sense, with the Republican Congress. Unfortunately trillions of dollars of wealth "created" during that period were eradicated in those following years.
But it still doesn't excuse what the Republicans did from 2003-2006. We just had a "worse repeat" in eradication of trillions of dollars of wealth. Of course, people like to "beef up statistics" to make "the other guys look horrible," but when you're comparing the same types of liabilities and losses in the end,
I could give a shit who anyone thinks is "less worse".
McCain and Obama are
not offering solutions, just the chance to sack the "responsible" with the issues created by the "irresponsible." But we've been pretty fucked since the '70s, with just temporary reprieves.
