You don't have many answers either.
Bush has answers.
Mostly spending.
Spending was rising by 14% when bush arrived. It’s now less than 3 percent growth.
Why not add in the emergency spending?
The "Emergency" Loophole
The budgetary impact of this "emergency" spending has been enormous. President Bush and Congress spent nearly a year arguing whether to cap fiscal year (FY) 2008 discretionary spending at $933 billion or $955 billion. Congress eventually agreed to the President's $933 billion level—and then both sides agreed to add $257 billion in "emergency" discretionary spending to bring the final 2008 total to $1,190 billion. The remaining $76 billion went toward entitlement programs.[2] Only in dysfunctional Washington will politicians fight for a year to save $22 billion in discretionary spending and then quickly agree to spend $257 billion.
According to this, non-defense, non-homeland security spending rose from $333 billion in 2001 to $446 billion in 2005. That's 6% growth, not 3%. If discretionary non-defense, non-homeland security spending was frozen at $446 billion thru this year, that's still 3.7% growth.
And let's ignore the cost of the new drug benefit, because that's an entitlement. LOL!
Please know I am laughing at your LOL.
And I'm laughing at your poor math skills.
I am still laughing at your laughter.
You don’t have answers. Bush does. Bush actually did something. He was not just sitting a keyboard timing mean comments about the President. He actually did something.
I have provided repeated references to various ways Bush controlled spending.
None of your analysis rebuts the cited points made by me.
Was the spending Emergency spending?
Indeed it was.
I want to commend you for doing some research. The Heritage foundation is a great source. However, their best guesses on Feb 6, 2006 don’t cut it for this debate. Because the SPECULATON that they engage in regarding 2006, 2007, and 2008 is now historical fact. The data I am citing from January 2009 can see what Heritage has to guess about.
Again, there is a simple litmus test. Do Democrats believe that Bush is cutting programs or denying adequate funding?
Yes.
This means the political alternative is more spending. Bush constrains spending.
This just in. . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28691801/
It looks like the bailout is already saving the economy.
I knew you would want to read the good news for President Bush.