This is not accurate. Compared to the spending that started in 2006, Bush's spending doesn't compare. These are democratic talking points that you somehow thought are true .. DO SOME F-ING research then post numbers, try to make your case, which you will be unable to do. Learn how to ACT/POST RESPONSIBLY NOT LIKE LIBTARDS.
Your loyalty to GW, who is a very good man, is admirable. But some awkward facts remain.
(1)The man could not develop and communicate his program.
(2) He most emphatically did not veto profligate spending and articulate sound fiscal policy. Indeed, he enabled it.
(3)He did not campaign effectively for Republican candidates
(4) He was passive in the face of an aggressive MSM and the Democrat Party.
Above all, his poor performance in managing the perception of his administration directly led to the election of Barak Hussein Obama, Jr., a radical ideologue who was not even eligible to be a candidate. When the country needed a strong leader, GW simply never had anything to say. Communications is part of the job.
Of course GW is a very good man, and may be given much more credit in the history books than I willing to give him now. But future historians will not be living day-to-day with his legacy. I am.