That's where the hypocrisy and insincerity comes in. Massive spending and deficits were a problem 30 years ago when Reagan came up with the theory that you could finance the military and all other government programs with borrowed money, lower taxes as a result, and then pay back the debt with interest later without hurting the economy much, because the economy would have grown so large that even while the tax rates remain low the amount of money being taxed would yield larger profits for the government. Phase 1 of his plan worked, phase 2 also worked, but phase 3 didn't work, because while growth in the private sector was good (for awhile), it wasn't anywhere near enough to finance the debt of 8 years.
To some extent, that policy decision characterizes the spending habits of every Administration since, with the exception of Clinton. The end result is 10-11 trillion dollars of debt -- almost all of it conservative in origin. This has been a long process 30 years in the making, but it is only now that a Democrat, a liberal, who is actually spending the amount of money conservatives have hitherto only fantasized about liberals spending, that the issue is worth having a protest over. I find that hypocritical and insincere; there were dozens of opportunities over the last 30 years to make this into an issue; probably would have occurred during Clinton's Administration if he had actually been a huge spender, but it was ignored and excused on behalf of Reagan and the Bush's, with Bush Junior finally getting some of the fall out -- but most of it being reserved for Obama.