Pretty much what I would say about you.
>>You have way too much time invested in your Bush Derangement Syndrome and really should seek help.
Complete nonsense. What is that idiotic claim based on?
>>There isn't one economic number today better than what Bush had during his term
Private-sector employment up by 400K. And that's up from the top of a bubble that led to a very disruptive near-collapse. We are now poised for a continuation of the stable expansion we've had over the past four years, and at a higher rate.
Let's look at some numbers on international trade. Under Bush, we ran larger trade deficits in his last five years than under any of Obama's, and they were larger in every year in real dollars.
When measured as a percentage of GDP, the large deficits under Bush are even more pronounced.
This chart makes the point even more clearly. Well, for me, at least, I like charts.
>>You want to blame Bush for the 2009 budget that was never passed by Congress or signed by Bush until Democrats took the WH and filled that budget with items of their own and signed by Obama knowing that people like you would blame Bush.
I'd say it's more complicated than that. As you know, the budget in the first year of a new president's term is traditionally ascribed to the previous administration. Even conservative opinion held to this conventional analysis for '09.
The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. — Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit
FY2009 was a very unusual year. (Let's hope we don't go through another one like it.) A significant amount of the increased spending that took place in that budget was indeed the responsibility of the Democrats. In fact, they had to work very hard to get it included. Only by securing Sen. Specter's vote were they able to avoid ANOTHER irresponsible filibuster. As I said earlier, "[a] fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year."
(It looks like you do have trouble reading my posts, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with quote boxes.)
Here's a PolitiFact article that discusses the issue at some length: Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending
In any event, I'd say the stimulus spending (and that's what we're talking about here — there's no point examining the other appropriation bills because the differences in dollars are insignificant, and in fact in some cases, as that article points out, the Democrats reduced outlays in order to free up resources FOR the directed stimulus) was required to keep the economy afloat.
>>You really could help yourself a lot by … doing some independent research on what you are being told.
Like I keep saying, yer often good for a laugh.