>>>>>>And the Rs could have passed it with another 12 yeses. So your take on this is that the Dems are supposed to vote unanimously, but the reps can vote however they like? Therefor it's entirely the fault of the dems that it didn't pass?
>>>>>
>>>>>My take is that pelosi is the head of the Ds, and she is supposed to be able to get her crew to vote her way. She couldn't, so she blames Rs for the failure, even after her excoriation of Rs. How stupid is she?
>>>>
>>>>She may be the leader, but she doesn't own anybody. She can't force them to vote any particular way. If the Rs are allowed to vote according to their constituancy, why aren't the Ds allowed the same latitude. Do the Rs not have a leader?
>>>
>>>Because taxing and spending is more of a D thing. Rs are supposed to be for less spending. Admittedly, many have joined the Ds in that endeavor, and they should be voted out....
>>
>>That is not reflecting of what happened the last 8 years. The clinton years were financially quite sound, the republican 8 years are dramatic. You're believing in myths.
>
>
>The Clinton years had a republican landslide in the middle, and Clinton was forced to implement the Rs tax cuts. That is why the economy rebounded. Ronald Reagan started the great economy when he took over, and it has pretty much been rolling along since then, until the war, and even worse recently. You need to do a little more research.

How do you explain the first 4 years of bush election? Really it is amazing, in how you always find ways to blame the D'. You should start a news channel. So the war on terror is not about spending? The governments support for cheap (but non profitable) mortages did not come from the R's?

The simple fact is that there was a lot less spending during the clinton years and a lot more during the Bush years. Whether they had ultimate control over the budgets is a different matter, but they sure can be held accountable for it.