Ratings change as the wind blows. One week they may be up, the next week down. Ratings have absolutely no value except to give pundits on either side of an issue (or in this case a public figure) something to talk about.
I have never cared about a public approval ratings. In fact, the only approval rating that matters to me is my own, which depends on my assessment of an issue or person on a case by case basis developed over time .
If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.
Do you know what an opinion is? How about thinking for a change? There was no budget for 2009 because Congress failed to pass it. 2009 spending was limited to Continuing resolutions based upon 2008 spending and 2008 spending would never have created the deficit you blame on Bush. Bush was in office for only 4 months of fiscal year 2009 and would be responsible only for that deficit. Treasury data shows what the deficit was when Bush left office and I posted the link to that deficit which of course you ignored. You also ignored that 350 billion of the 2009 deficit was due to TARP, a loan which was repaid and you ignored what Obama did with that repayment.
Now as for the revenue loss, you want to blame Bush but ignore Obama's Stimulus and its failure. Had Obama not created the stimulus I would agree with the revenue loss but his prediction and stimulus was supposed to create shovel ready jobs to keep unemployment from exceeding 8% and that would have prevented the lost revenue. You want to ignore that.
Now I await for you to respond to the facts I just posted, not opinion, FACT.