So YOU blame the Bush administration for deficits?---REALLY? How about some FACTS.

[MajikMyst]

I blame both as well for the most part.. But the real issue is getting a republican to blame a republican for their share of the responsibility..

All I hear is Obama this and that.. They don't want to blame Bush for his share.. Which is quite abit since Obama has been in office for barely over a year..

It is still a reality that Bush took us from a surplus to where we are today.. You can't cut taxes and start two wars and not expect to kill the economy.. That is a simple truth..

 

[skookerasbil]

Both pubs and dems have made this mess. Obama and the dem congress are making it worse. Both parties need to be paying down this debt not adding to it. This is the national debt by year. It went up regardless of which party was in control under Bush. It will continue to go up until the voters on both sides realize their "party" is just as responsible as the other. Then they can look for candidates {on BOTH sides} that will actually do what is necessary to reduce this debt.


As you were.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

This is an exercise in comprehension of numbers, dealing with the phenomenon which caused marketers around the world to stop pricing products and services with round numbers.

Notice, if you will, that the numbers appear to go up an equal amount (roughly) each year, right to the last year.

But upon closer examination, you will discover that the increase each year is about 500 Billion, but the increase the last year is nearly four times that amount, or TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

Another thing that people seem to forget is that the nation's economy took a big hit on 9/11, nearly devastating the Airline industry, among others. No other administration has had to deal with that kind of emergency. However, the speed with which the Obaminable Noman's minions are dismantling the security infrastructure that kept us from further successful attacks will likely result in more Americans leaping out of skyscraper windows to avoid immolation before his first term is over.

But don't expect the Obamination to take the same path as Bush, because he doesn't see anything wrong with having other nations send their religious whackjobs to further their interests by murdering innocents in America or anywhere else.


As you were.

Of course the lying Bushwacker didn't leave office on 9/30/2008 did he!!!
On Jan 20, 2009 the debt was $600 billion higher, $10,626,877,048,913.08 and you also glossed over the fact that the year before the debt rose $1 trillion, so in Bush's last 2 years he doubled and then tripled the average you used.

yuk............yuk.............


heres the illustrative analogy s0n.......................





BUSH DEFICIT





OBAMA DEFICIT

 

[MajikMyst]

This is an exercise in comprehension of numbers, dealing with the phenomenon which caused marketers around the world to stop pricing products and services with round numbers.

Notice, if you will, that the numbers appear to go up an equal amount (roughly) each year, right to the last year.

But upon closer examination, you will discover that the increase each year is about 500 Billion, but the increase the last year is nearly four times that amount, or TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

Another thing that people seem to forget is that the nation's economy took a big hit on 9/11, nearly devastating the Airline industry, among others. No other administration has had to deal with that kind of emergency. However, the speed with which the Obaminable Noman's minions are dismantling the security infrastructure that kept us from further successful attacks will likely result in more Americans leaping out of skyscraper windows to avoid immolation before his first term is over.

But don't expect the Obamination to take the same path as Bush, because he doesn't see anything wrong with having other nations send their religious whackjobs to further their interests by murdering innocents in America or anywhere else.


As you were.

Of course the lying Bushwacker didn't leave office on 9/30/2008 did he!!!
On Jan 20, 2009 the debt was $600 billion higher, $10,626,877,048,913.08 and you also glossed over the fact that the year before the debt rose $1 trillion, so in Bush's last 2 years he doubled and then tripled the average you used.

yuk............yuk.............


heres the illustrative analogy s0n.......................





BUSH DEFICIT





OBAMA DEFICIT

Actually that looked more like a lesson on misinformation..

Nice try though..

But you do make yourself look really stupid!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Bush Deficits >>>>>>>>>>

Obama deficits >>>>>>>

are we getting the picture yet s0ns?????????????????

 

[skookerasbil]

perhaps the k00ks might better understand this ( what was I thinking??!!)

 

[dilligras]

Of course the lying Bushwacker didn't leave office on 9/30/2008 did he!!!
On Jan 20, 2009 the debt was $600 billion higher, $10,626,877,048,913.08 and you also glossed over the fact that the year before the debt rose $1 trillion, so in Bush's last 2 years he doubled and then tripled the average you used.

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? The spendthrift Dems were in control of Congress from '06 until today. Pelosi and Reid didn't just start their BS in '08, and one of the biggest complaints conservatives had against Bush was his refusal to veto any spending for his first 6 years--or are you one of those who will try to portray Bush as a conservative?

Go ahead, make my day.

Wow, first you use annoying to read (so I didn't) orange fonts, and now you're changing your argument entirely when proven wrong?

Sheesh.

I agree, the orange is too bright...sorry. But so is red.

No, I'm not "changing" my argument... just adding to it in order to directly address your consideration about Bush's term coinciding with the rise in deficit spending. I have not refuted or contradicted anything that I previously contended, have I?

If so, kindly direct me to those paragraphs, that I may grovel in abject remorse.

Bush was behaving like a liberal twit when it came to spending other people's hard-earned money, so why should anyone be surprised that when the elites in the media conspired with the elites on Wall Street to affect the election (Dan Rather is beside himself with envy, don'cha know), that the result was a meltdown that Bush addressed by--you guessed it--spending other people's money.

But you don't seem to have anything of consequence to add to this conversation, only bitching and moaning and bogus claims of changed arguments, n'est-ce pas?

Pardon me if I decline further interaction, sans any substantive contribution from you, lest I be charged with undertaking a battle of wits with the too obviously unarmed.


As you were.

 

[dilligras]

Of course the lying Bushwacker didn't leave office on 9/30/2008 did he!!!
On Jan 20, 2009 the debt was $600 billion higher, $10,626,877,048,913.08 and you also glossed over the fact that the year before the debt rose $1 trillion, so in Bush's last 2 years he doubled and then tripled the average you used.

yuk............yuk.............


heres the illustrative analogy s0n.......................





BUSH DEFICIT





OBAMA DEFICIT

Actually that looked more like a lesson on misinformation..

Nice try though..

But you do make yourself look really stupid!!

Which begs the question: what expertise may you cite in the recognition of examples of misinformation?? Do you perhaps instruct others in the art of misinformation? Or at least on the proper manner in which to proffer a backhanded compliment?


Inquiring minds, and all that, y'know.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk............yuk.............


heres the illustrative analogy s0n.......................





BUSH DEFICIT





OBAMA DEFICIT

Actually that looked more like a lesson on misinformation..

Nice try though..

But you do make yourself look really stupid!!

Which begs the question: what expertise may you cite in the recognition of examples of misinformation?? Do you perhaps instruct others in the art of misinformation? Or at least on the proper manner in which to proffer a backhanded compliment?


Inquiring minds, and all that, y'know.

I actually liked this analogy vs. the boob analogy...........although both pretty much tell the story if you are comparing deficit #'s

 

[dilligras]

I blame both as well for the most part.. But the real issue is getting a republican to blame a republican for their share of the responsibility..

Izzatso? Sounds like you don't blame both at all (the 'real issue', huh?)

And since when have Dems been speechifying their own responsibility in the collapse of the economy??? Have you seen the two jackasses (Franks and Dodd) who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground acknowledging any culpability whatsoever? No, you have not.

Who in the Demoncrat Party have you heard acknowledge that their policies have ruined the economies of a dozen states (CA, MA, MI, etc.) or more???

Remember the War on Poverty?? Who started that one? Have we won it or lost it?

All I hear is Obama this and that.. They don't want to blame Bush for his share.. Which is quite abit since Obama has been in office for barely over a year..

Oh, sure, make all the excuses for the Obaminable Noman you want, right up until you find yourself muttering "... but he's only been in office barely over three years..." as you stumble along in your ragged blanket, headed for the soup lines so generously provided by your nanny statist hero.

It is still a reality that Bush took us from a surplus to where we are today.. You can't cut taxes and start two wars and not expect to kill the economy.. That is a simple truth..

Yes, yes, we all know about that reality... how could we not, since the Obamination seemingly can't meet with his proctologist without mentioning his "inheritance" from Bush.

And the reality that Clinton left a surplus (never mind that he shut down half our defense network to do it) has also seen an exorbitant amount of wasted ink, too. But why is it that so few of these analysts want to acknowledge the reality of 9/11's impact on our economy?? Should Bush be held accountable for the plunging stock market that resulted, while given none of the credit for a fairly rapid recovery from that attack?

Al-Qaeda started the first war, and Saddam could have easily averted the second, as I've already proved on these pages... so who is spreading misinformation now, mon ami?

I find your analysis consistent with your information--which is to say wanting in all departments, especially those dealing with perception of bias in your sources.



As you were.

 

[Vast LWC]

I agree, the orange is too bright...sorry. But so is red.

No, I'm not "changing" my argument... just adding to it in order to directly address your consideration about Bush's term coinciding with the rise in deficit spending. I have not refuted or contradicted anything that I previously contended, have I?

If so, kindly direct me to those paragraphs, that I may grovel in abject remorse.

Bush was behaving like a liberal twit when it came to spending other people's hard-earned money, so why should anyone be surprised that when the elites in the media conspired with the elites on Wall Street to affect the election (Dan Rather is beside himself with envy, don'cha know), that the result was a meltdown that Bush addressed by--you guessed it--spending other people's money.

But you don't seem to have anything of consequence to add to this conversation, only bitching and moaning and bogus claims of changed arguments, n'est-ce pas?

Pardon me if I decline further interaction, sans any substantive contribution from you, lest I be charged with undertaking a battle of wits with the too obviously unarmed.


As you were.

Wow, I was just making an observation, but hey, ok, let me contribute.

The point is not whether Bush and his magic spending congresses (both Republican and Democrat) were fiscally conservative...

The point is that the Republicans at the time ran on the platform of being fiscally conservative, and weren't.

So why should anyone believe the current crop of Republicans would be any different?

Are they different because they're re-branding themselves as the "Tea Party"?

Hey, at least the Democrats TRY to cover the money their spending with more taxes. The Republicans just spend all willy-nilly and don't try to pay for it, like spoiled little children.

Oh, but, I forgot, the current crop that are vying for office are "different", right? They're not going to do the exact same thing as their predecessors, who promised the exact same thing...

Right?

As you were.

 

[Vast LWC]

In addition, one could easily infer that the only reason Bush tried to veto Democratic spending was not that he was being "fiscally conservative", but that he didn't like the democratic legislation the money was being spent on.

I find it quite telling that the only time Republicans and right wingers really push the issue of fixing the deficit and reducing spending is when Democrats are in charge.

It's pretty convenient that Republicans would suddenly become so concerned about the issue whenever it's time to fund Democratic programs, isn't it?

 

[johnrocks]

Anybody mention a Veto?

 

[Care4all]

We had TARP in october of 2008, I am certain this was billions upon billions added to the national debt BEFORE Obama got in to office..... fiscal 2009 is President Bush's deficit....it goes on his record....just as what bush did in early 2001 goes on Clinton's record till fiscal year end of September 2001.

 

[dilligras]

I agree, the orange is too bright...sorry. But so is red.

No, I'm not "changing" my argument... just adding to it in order to directly address your consideration about Bush's term coinciding with the rise in deficit spending. I have not refuted or contradicted anything that I previously contended, have I?

If so, kindly direct me to those paragraphs, that I may grovel in abject remorse.

Bush was behaving like a liberal twit when it came to spending other people's hard-earned money, so why should anyone be surprised that when the elites in the media conspired with the elites on Wall Street to affect the election (Dan Rather is beside himself with envy, don'cha know), that the result was a meltdown that Bush addressed by--you guessed it--spending other people's money.

But you don't seem to have anything of consequence to add to this conversation, only bitching and moaning and bogus claims of changed arguments, n'est-ce pas?

Pardon me if I decline further interaction, sans any substantive contribution from you, lest I be charged with undertaking a battle of wits with the too obviously unarmed.


As you were.

The point is not whether Bush and his magic spending congresses (both Republican and Democrat) were fiscally conservative. The point is that the Republicans at the time ran on the platform of being fiscally conservative, and weren't.

And just who was it, mon frere, that made you the arbiter of what "the point" is? Did I not get that memo from God?

As I've repeated several times, the Reps acting like Dems is a prime motivator for conservatives, and their doing so seems to have further emboldened the Dems to act even more like the radicals who define the modern party.

So why should anyone believe the current crop of Republicans would be any different?

Are they different because they're re-branding themselves as the "Tea Party"?

The RNC will try to capitalize on ANY conservative movement, as is their wont. The Tea Party folks exist precisely because they're no longer willing to put up with RINOs subverting conservative policies and issues, simply to appeal to an overtly leftist press.

Your skepticism would fit well there, but leave your affiliation with D's or R's at home.... they don't want to hear it.

Hey, at least the Democrats TRY to cover the money their spending with more taxes. The Republicans just spend all willy-nilly and don't try to pay for it, like spoiled little children.

There is some truth to that, at least in the last decade. The problem is that you haven't acknowledged the very fundamental problem with defending spending with taxation: IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY TO SPEND!!!

Increasingly, bureaucrats in this country view the taxpayer as an endless source of the financial lubricant needed to grease the wheels of their agenda, and little more. Demogogues have usurped the power of the Constitution, using the very carrot of their own labor to lead the people down the primrose path of socialist enterprise.

Oh, but, I forgot, the current crop that are vying for office are "different", right? They're not going to do the exact same thing as their predecessors, who promised the exact same thing...

Right?

As you were.

Lemmeseenow, pilgrim... there's a CONSERVATIVE sitting in the recently vacated seat of Senator Kennedy, is there not?

Not another lefty RINO like Martha Coakly or John McCain, but a conservative who happens to be a Republican.

The only reason the Obaminable Noman is hosting the WH bbq's is because conservatives were fed up with RINOs like McCain (hence the boost to his campaign when he selected a true conservative running mate) and stayed home in droves. So, in a way you could say they elected Osama Bin Lyin', n'est-ce pas?



As you were, landlubber.

 

[Vast LWC]

And just who was it, mon frere, that made you the arbiter of what "the point" is? Did I not get that memo from God?

As I've repeated several times, the Reps acting like Dems is a prime motivator for conservatives, and their doing so seems to have further emboldened the Dems to act even more like the radicals who define the modern party.

That's a rationalization if I've ever heard one.

The RNC will try to capitalize on ANY conservative movement, as is their wont. The Tea Party folks exist precisely because they're no longer willing to put up with RINOs subverting conservative policies and issues, simply to appeal to an overtly leftist press.

Your skepticism would fit well there, but leave your affiliation with D's or R's at home.... they don't want to hear it.

That is absolutely false. The Tea Party is specifically acting within the confines of the Republican party, trying to get Republicans elected that promise them that this time they'll actually be conservative.

Pretending that the Tea Party is acting as an actual third party is a completely false premise.

There is some truth to that, at least in the last decade. The problem is that you haven't acknowledged the very fundamental problem with defending spending with taxation: IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY TO SPEND!!!

And there is some truth to that, though it's also true that congress is given the power to use taxpayer funds to help the public at large through the constitution.

If we don't like how they're spending OUR money, we have the power to vote them out.

Increasingly, bureaucrats in this country view the taxpayer as an endless source of the financial lubricant needed to grease the wheels of their agenda, and little more. Demogogues have usurped the power of the Constitution, using the very carrot of their own labor to lead the people down the primrose path of socialist enterprise.

Lemmeseenow, pilgrim... there's a CONSERVATIVE sitting in the recently vacated seat of Senator Kennedy, is there not?

Not another lefty RINO like Martha Coakly or John McCain, but a conservative who happens to be a Republican.

Perhaps a fiscal conservative, but definitely NOT a social conservative. Brown is Pro-Choice after all. A Massachusetts Republican is like a Mid-western Democrat.

The only reason the Obaminable Noman is hosting the WH bbq's is because conservatives were fed up with RINOs like McCain (hence the boost to his campaign when he selected a true conservative running mate) and stayed home in droves. So, in a way you could say they elected Osama Bin Lyin', n'est-ce pas?

As you were, landlubber.

I'm a bit confused by your right-wing encoding here. Perhaps you'd like to translate this to English for the uninitiated? The French is more comprehensible than the rest of the paragraph.

And does the fact that you called me "landlubber" make you a squid-boy?

 

[dilligras]

We had TARP in october of 2008, I am certain this was billions upon billions added to the national debt BEFORE Obama got in to office..... fiscal 2009 is President Bush's deficit....it goes on his record....just as what bush did in early 2001 goes on Clinton's record till fiscal year end of September 2001.

Sooooo, you think Clinton should get credit for the stock market crashing from a DJ of over 2000 to less than 900 after 9/11? That hardly seems fair, oui?


Carry on.

 

[dilligras]

And just who was it, mon frere, that made you the arbiter of what "the point" is? Did I not get that memo from God?

As I've repeated several times, the Reps acting like Dems is a prime motivator for conservatives, and their doing so seems to have further emboldened the Dems to act even more like the radicals who define the modern party.

That's a rationalization if I've ever heard one.

Au contraire, mon ami. Lefties like to pretend that the nation's moral and ethical standards of correct behavior are reflected by what the talking heads espouse on the 6 o'clock "news." Obviously, it is they who are desperately contorting their facts in order to have them conform to their perverted belief system.

They decline to bring up the uncomfortable fact of the grassroots nature of the Tea Party, and will, if of the particularly arrogant stripe of pinko scum, even claim some nefarious organizing activities on the part of their arch nemesis (Al-Qaeda? In a pig's eye!), Fox News, or as I like to call them, "a pitiful excuse for the only widely seen source of loyal opposition to the Democrat Party whatsoever."

N'est-ce pas?

The RNC will try to capitalize on ANY conservative movement, as is their wont. The Tea Party folks exist precisely because they're no longer willing to put up with RINOs subverting conservative policies and issues, simply to appeal to an overtly leftist press.


Your skepticism would fit well there, but leave your affiliation with D's or R's at home.... they don't want to hear it.

That is absolutely false. The Tea Party is specifically acting within the confines of the Republican party, trying to get Republicans elected that promise them that this time they'll actually be conservative.
Pretending that the Tea Party is acting as an actual third party is a completely false premise.

I'm sorry, but I beg your forgiveness in advance, for I must insist on some sort of authority for these overt proclamations of insider information.

Are you Tea Partier?

Do you know any?

Are you a member of any of the myriad local organizations popping up ALL OVER THE COUNTRYSIDE??

How about having read any of the posts on any of their Facebook groups?


No?

Waaaal, then, pilgrim, does your Mama's hairdresser's boyfriend's auto mechanic's wife's second cousin know someone who heard about them on MSNBC sometime last year?

“Sheesh”

And there is some truth to that, though it's also true that congress is given the power to use taxpayer funds to help the public at large through the constitution.
If we don't like how they're spending OUR money, we have the power to vote them out.

I can't yet post a link, pardner, or I would provide a link to a speech made by a great American, Davy Crockett, when he addressed Congress over this very issue. If you can bring yourself to do a search for the document, just copy and past this into your search field: davy crockett not yours to give.

Not that I entertain much hope of anyone so enamored of the Obaminable Noman actually reading it.... it's just that the coffee's still brewing and I have to wait a few, anyway.

Increasingly, bureaucrats in this country view the taxpayer as an endless source of the financial lubricant needed to grease the wheels of their agenda, and little more. Demogogues have usurped the power of the Constitution, using the very carrot of their own labor to lead the people down the primrose path of socialist enterprise.


Lemmeseenow, pilgrim... there's a CONSERVATIVE sitting in the recently vacated seat of Senator Kennedy, is there not?
Not another lefty RINO like Martha Coakly or John McCain, but a conservative who happens to be a Republican.

Perhaps a fiscal conservative, but definitely NOT a social conservative. Brown is Pro-Choice after all. A Massachusetts Republican is like a Mid-western Democrat.

No need to bring up superfluous issues... the Tea Partiers have no agenda vis a vis abortion, as far as I've heard, though I'm sure many of them have an opinion on that, too.
They have come together over the blatant attacks on our Constitutionally mandated freedoms, the economy, and taxes. Period. That's all they talked about with me, anyway.

The Dems and RINO Reps both ignore them at their peril.

As for Brown's values and abortion, one issue does not a conservative make. After all, abortion is not the issue that is tearing down this country's economy in an effort to further enslave its people to the left's agenda.

The only reason the Obaminable Noman is hosting the WH bbq's is because conservatives were fed up with RINOs like McCain (hence the boost to his campaign when he selected a true conservative running mate) and stayed home in droves. So, in a way you could say they elected Osama Bin Lyin', n'est-ce pas?

As you were, landlubber.

I'm a bit confused by your right-wing encoding here. Perhaps you'd like to translate this to English for the uninitiated? The French is more comprehensible than the rest of the paragraph.

My apologies, I thought I was using redneck polspeak encoding:

WH=White House

bbq's=bar-b-cue’s

RINOs=Republicans In Name Only

in droves=an English idiom, referring to simultaneously acting large quantities.

running mate=in this case, the antidote for Nancy Pelosi's egregious affronts, Sarah Palin.

And does the fact that you called me "landlubber" make you a squid-boy?

I have no idea about that, not having had anyone address me as “boy” for about 45 years.


As. You. Were.

 

[Toronado3800]

US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP in United States 1900-2010 - Federal State Local

That's my favorite chart. You need two numbers to tell "how bad" the deficit is and the two interact in strange ways.

1. you need to know the size of the economy. IF Portugal had our debt it would be crippling. Probably so to any other country
2. if the economy tanks next year the debt will be worse as a % of GDP even if spending is held steady.
3. gotta be careful making too big of changes to the economy in any one year. Instability creates either panic or situations like that weird bubble in the housing market from investors who either didn't understand economic history or didn't care.
<B>4. Something weird happened between 1968 and 199? when Clinton started trimming the budget. Was it us trying to win the cold war? The policies of Nixon, Nixon(Ford), Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush1? Who knows. We had plenty of deficits with little to show for it.</B>

My pet theory is the gravy time between 1945 and 1960 when the rest of the world's economy was in the toilet as they rebuilt from WWII spoiled American politicians, citizens, and economists who were in office from 68 to 92.

 

[MajikMyst]

Actually that looked more like a lesson on misinformation..

Nice try though..

But you do make yourself look really stupid!!

Which begs the question: what expertise may you cite in the recognition of examples of misinformation?? Do you perhaps instruct others in the art of misinformation? Or at least on the proper manner in which to proffer a backhanded compliment?


Inquiring minds, and all that, y'know.

I actually liked this analogy vs. the boob analogy...........although both pretty much tell the story if you are comparing deficit #'s

But see you are making yourself look like an idiot!! You are trying to convince me that TARP, two wars that were never claimed in the bush budget, cost as much as a small pair of titties or a small cat?

Your facts are flawed!! Obama hasn't spent 1/10th of what Bush has spent.. Numbers don't lie, but it appears you do.. Bush's perscription drug plan, his tax cuts, I could go on and on..

His tax cuts alone cost the government something like 2.9 trillion dollars the first year they were enacted.. 2.9 trillion for ONE year!! ONE!! How much you think it cost for every year after that?? And we still have them.. And it is still being added to Bush's contribution to the deficit!! As long as those tax custs are there, it is Bush's contribution.. He should have killed those tax cuts the day after 9/11.. How much do you think that effected our deficit?

That is the problem with you people.. You simply don't know and you are using lame ass pictures to make a false point.. If you want to belive that Bush in 8 years has done nothing to our economy.. Then you are have that right.. You also have the right to be an ingnorant turd for having that belief..

 

[dilligras]

Which begs the question: what expertise may you cite in the recognition of examples of misinformation?? Do you perhaps instruct others in the art of misinformation? Or at least on the proper manner in which to proffer a backhanded compliment?


Inquiring minds, and all that, y'know.

I actually liked this analogy vs. the boob analogy...........although both pretty much tell the story if you are comparing deficit #'s

But see you are making yourself look like an idiot!! You are trying to convince me that TARP, two wars that were never claimed in the bush budget, cost as much as a small pair of titties or a small cat?

Now you're just manufacturing straw men, in order to give yourself an easy opponent. The argument was one of scale, not dollar amounts, my spindifferously oppugnant messenger of discord. Get some snap, or spare us the sappy reparte', s'il vous plait.

Your facts are flawed!! Obama hasn't spent 1/10th of what Bush has spent.. Numbers don't lie, but it appears you do.. Bush's perscription drug plan, his tax cuts, I could go on and on...

Speaking of numbers and lying... "If you make less than
$250,000, your taxes won't go up onc single dime, and you can take that to the bank!!!"

His tax cuts alone cost the government something like 2.9 trillion dollars the first year they were enacted.. 2.9 trillion for ONE year!! ONE!! How much you think it cost for every year after that?? And we still have them.. And it is still being added to Bush's contribution to the deficit!! As long as those tax custs are there, it is Bush's contribution.. He should have killed those tax cuts the day after 9/11.. How much do you think that effected our deficit?

Got a link? Or is this your own analysis, Geraldo?

That is the problem with you people.. You simply don't know and you are using lame ass pictures to make a false point.. If you want to belive that Bush in 8 years has done nothing to our economy.. Then you are have that right.. You also have the right to be an ingnorant turd for having that belief..

My, my, can I be one of the "you people," please? That way I can just sit back and let you tell everyone what I think and what I know, and I can just sit here, sipping my coffee and watching the fireworks. I might even pop some popcorn later, especially if there is a chance to watch the monkeys throw more feces at random passers by!