Off topic on this post:

WHERE THE HELL IS MY PROMISED COLLEGE AID? Pffffffffff

The Democrats and their supporters primarily blame the Republicans because they can't (politically) afford to pass these unpopular bills without Republican support ... If the Democrats used their filibuster proof majority, or used reconciliation to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster, every line of that massive bill that's full of questionable legislation will be "owned" by the Democrats. This means that throughout 2010 you can see ads on TV that say things like "How did we get a $2 Trillion deficit? Well the Democrats approved a healthcare bill that spent $350,000 to buy a single bed-pan."

How about this: "Democrats are out of control.  Tax and spend policies are running amok.  Canned pork: $17,000,000; Mozzerella cheese: $1,600,000; wild horse rehabilitation: 700 million dollars; electing representatives that spend like its Christmas--priceless.  Vote Republican and keep more of your taxpayer money."

Yes, because the Republican Party has proven to be a paragon of fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Bridge to nowhere, anyone?

You've got to understand that marketing campaings like the ones suggested are not about whether one party is good at managing finances as much as they're about presenting one party as being dramatically worse at managing finances than the other party ... When the total 8-year defict of George W. Bush is $2.75 Trillion, and Obama and the Democrats will pass that by the time the mid-term elections are held next year, its difficult to argue that the Democrats are doing a better job than the Republicans were.

Here's the thing though...saying "well they sucked to" isn't leadership and it isn't helping the situation.  The party in power shouldn't be pettily pointing and saying "They did the same thing!"...particularly when the party in power got in power by saying "We are way different from those guys!  Aren't you tired of all their stupid policies? Then vote for us!".

With that said you're right - republicans were absolutely...completely...and utterly...TERRIBLE when it came to fiscal responsibility under Bush.  But that is all the more reason for the existing administration to put a stop to the crazy spending, not to continue it saying "our turn!".

@Jackson50: I was against Pres. G. W. Bush's increases in gov't. I am not a libertarian and in NO way an isolationist but there are ways to cut the budget, i.e. cutting DOE, HUD, DOI, etc. Also, forcing the govt to pass bidding for military procurement.  Now will this cut down on the budget in the way of trillions?  No way but it is a start.  Federal govt should leave more to the states.  Creeping federalism (Great Society for example) is a cancer.

Well, that is convenient. Seemingly, and this is based on many conversations I have had with Republicans, no one supported President Bush's deficits or his increase in government. Why they would support him and his party is beyond me, but they assuredly did not support his deficits. Also, do not give former President Bush sole credit for the budget deficits. It is not Bush's increase in government. The deficits experienced during the past eight years fall on the head of almost every Republican in the federal government; from President Bush to every Republican congressperson who did not oppose the deficits-there are few who did. No, the Republicans cannot be trusted to curtail government spending. Granted, the deficits experienced under a Republican congress might not be as severe as the deficit we are currently experiencing. Nevertheless, if the Republicans return to power, and they will eventually, it is going to be more of the same.

We need a dictator to get shit done or undone. Then after people start bitching about the changes we go back to the two party politics where everything stays relatively stagnant - where people are most comfortable.

Funny story. I was in Pleasanton California a few weeks back at the mall for whatever reason and they had a rally against healthcare (socialized i guess). Anyway, I saw a bunch of old people and I thought to myself I should protest the government too, but knowing that around 80% of seniors are on medicare or medicare supplemental or some other of the plans I wanted to protest that and social security, but I didn't have the heart, the time, or the balls to do it.

Thus, I think we need to go to the extremes in this country. I think we should go very libertarian, so much so that the federal government basically just controls the military and diplomacy. Then we should go as far left as we can without having the economy centrally planned. Then maybe we can find something in the middle.

Actually, I think my plan is just some perverse idea to inflict pain on everyone with any political opinions.