I won’t bother to read it, but I know exactly what the idiot’s presuppositions are.

What he’s going to do first of all is assert that all the 2009 Obama spending was actually Bush’s fault. I get this crap all the time and here’s how I responded to the last version:

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who passed the $862 billion stimulus on February 17, 2009 is it?

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who did that $79 billion bailout for Government Motors and their union Democrats in 2009?

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who signed that $410 billion Omnibus bill in March of 2009?

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who left $350 billion in TARP money to President Damn Bush who spent it in early 2009???

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who rammed that damned $2.6 trillion ObamaCare - Ooh, I’m sorry, GorgieCare bill – down our collectivist throats?

It’s really amazing to me what a lousy bunch of Marxists you liars truly ARE. Obama passes all these things, takes credit for them, but when it’s time to be financially responsible for his own damn bills it’s more “Bush did it! Put all the garbage I did and took credit for on Bush’s bill!!!”

George Bush actually HAD a budget for FY-2009. It was of course decried by you cockroach Democrats for its CUTS. It had a deficit of $400 billion, you lying weasel. And It didn’t have any of the above crap that you seem to think Bush was responsible for.</blockquote?

The second assumption is that since every liberal knows that Bush was responsible for the recession, they therefore "give" Bush pretty much all of the hits related to the recession. So Obama is only responsible for the good things and Bush is responsible for all the bad things. They create a "baseline" which assumes, for example, that the Iraq War would have gone on forever if Obama hadn't ended it (just ignore that Bush won the damn war and was the president who actually negotiated the withdrawal of US forces), so Obama therefore "saved" the more-than-$700 billion that would have gone to fight the war that Obama got us out of even though it was BUSH who won and got us out of that war. Crap like that.

And then they shoot a number out of their butts and lo and behold, Obama hardly spent anything and Bush spent everything.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_popular

I haven’t had a chance to pick apart the article. Even if the article is true, what difference would it make when it is a fact that Obama is projected to have increased the national debt by more than 6 trillion in his first term, and he is almost there now.

Anyway, I thought you would find it interesting.