Lowfields wrote:

Obama would have to grab the treasury by the ankles, turn it upside down and shake it for eight years straight to match the largesse of the Bush crew…

No, Obama proposes to surpass the 8 years of spending increases under Bush within the first 2 years of his administration. Since Bush took office 8 years ago, total federal spending has increased by $1.142 trillion per year — and yes, that’s a horrific and indefensible increase.

Obama’s plan, however, calls for an increase of some $800 billion this year and (probably) a similar increase next year. As lousy as Bush’s record is on spending — and it IS lousy — Obama is promising something much worse.

Lowfields also wrote:

Why is it when a Republican president hands over trillions of dollars of tax-payer money in bloated, no-bid contracts so his friends can profit from an unecessary war….

Of the $1.142 trillion annual increase in spending that has occurred under Bush, only $312.8 billion of the increase has been for defense. So 73% of the increase has been for non-defense expenditures. See the numbers on pages 58 and 59 here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

This is why it is particularly frustrating to hear Bush described as “conservative” and to hear our current economic problems being blamed on Bush’s “deregulation” and “laissez-faire” policies. Regarding fiscal and monetary policies, Bush has been the most liberal president in our history. And far from any “deregulation” occurring, THOUSANDS of additional government regulations have been added to the Code of Federal Regulations during his tenure.

Obama, however, promises to top Bush in both categories.