Which part of the giant spike in the deficit and spending graphs in 2008 did President Obama not support? Why did he argue to maintain spending at those levels for four years?

If 2007 was "drunken sailor" level spending, surely you'd agree to a budget with that level of spending + population growth/inflation? That's way below where we are now.

I agree that Bush spent more than was prudent. But it's nuts to think that's an argument that President Obama hasn't demonstrated much worse spending discipline. Stimulus levels were sold as a way to jumpstart the economy, not as a permanent level hundreds of billions higher than what Bush ever dreamed of spending. You can argue that we still need that level of spending, but you shouldn't argue that somehow it's not historically high.

Who's arguing for lower spending now? Who was arguing for it in 1995 (and got it!)? Do you really think if the GOP could snap its fingers and pass something like the Ryan budget they wouldn't? Where's the comparable low-spending Democratic budget?

Maybe high spending and/or high taxes are great things, but when it comes to spending discipline, right now, there is a difference in the parties' agendas.

So wait, one guy walked into office with a budget surplus, started 2 foolish wars, did tax cuts without proper service cuts, and threw us deep into the debt and you're criticizing the guy who tried to get us out of it via a stimulus which probably saved our economy from a depression? Oh ok.