Rob, all through the Bush years, you were not one bit concerned with deficits including trade deficits.

Wrong. Since President Bush was not a conservative, conservatives were very much against his Dem-style social spending. So-called “trade deficits” are meaningless, except to union thugs. Still, if you criticize the Bush deficits and his “stimulus package”, why aren’t you shouting from the rooftops against Obama’s massively increased deficits and failed “stimulus package”? Why the double standard. Your criticism of President Bush’s spending rings hollow.

And if you recall, Bush didn’t leave office until near the end of January 2009.

And if you recall, the Congress, which spends our money, went Dem after the ’06 election, and started treating President Bush as a “lame duck”.

So now you are claiming that Bush did have serious spending problems that caused deficits. I see you have taken your own challenge. thanks.

I never said that President Bush had “serious spending problems”, so you lie there. It is intellectually dishonest to rely on mischaracterizing what I actually said, instead of answering the questions I asked you. If you had any valid counter argument to anything I said, I’m sure you would have made it.
In addition, since all you lefties failed to point out the one thing President Bush did(along with Congress, of course) that could be characterized as being recessionary is a failure on your part, not mine.
In fact, on balance, President Bush had a net positive effect on our economy for most of his administration, until the time bomb of thirty years of wasteful Dem social spending, combined with the affirmative action home loan mandates and the domestic energy development bans, took our economy into a slight recession.
Obama’s much greater recessionary moves, with no balancing moves to actually allow the economy to grow, have made the problem exponentially worse.

Rob, all through the Bush years, you were not one bit concerned with deficits including trade deficits. Your concern with deficits rings a bit hollow now.

And if you recall, Bush didn’t leave office until near the end of January 2009.

djer: Another mischaracterization in your spew: I haven’t been “railing on people”. If you actually read what I wrote, you will find that I have simply asked them, time and time again, to name any Bush economic policy that was recessionary. That was always an invitation to a real debate on the issue, rather than the usual leftie tactic of simply spewing unsupported partisan claims. So far, I have had no takers.
BTW, naming a policy is only the beginning of the debate.

aww…once again, another liberal is pissed off and frustrated when the opposition uses facts and logic. You’d think they would learn that truth (facts and logic) will always win debates. Sadly, the same can’t always be said for the common voter.

And if you recall, Bush didn’t leave office until near the end of January 2009.

That still doesn’t make him responsible for Obama’s deficits.

Thank you George Bush for getting us into this mess in the first place.

Uh…did you even bother to look at the graph above? Bush left office with a roughly $400 billion deficit. OBama ran that up to about $1.3 trillion. The latest numbers are at about $1.75 trillion. More than 4x what Bush had.

Also, Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years. And Obama himself voted for the bailouts at the end of the Bush term which are responsible for a good deal of the deficit he did leave office with.

But your partisan hackery aside, DJer, if you’re concerned about deficits then surely you’re going to join us in opposing Obama’s spending now? Since the government is clearly bankrupt and we can’t afford it.

Right?