In response to:

How Liberals Argue: Democrats Voting Against Debt Ceiling Wasn't "Real"

Buck O Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 10:30 AM
Muzzie boy pukes, "If Conservatism is so great...what happened from 2000-2006?" Well, let's see here. Clinton was President in 2000, and presided over a recession while setting up Al Qaeda for future terrorist attacks. After that, Bush became President and presided over consistent high growth and low unemployment. Sounds pretty "great" to me.
wiseone Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 10:41 AM
What happened from 2001 through 2006 is that our economy recovered from the Clinton recession and revenues to the Treasury, from the Bush tax rates, rose from $1.9 trillion (Clinton's last year) to $2.56 trillion in fiscal 2006.

Even after the mortgage collapse, which was caused by liberal policies, revenues to the Treasury under the Bush tax rates remained at more than $2.2 trillion or more every year; 10% higher than Clinton's best year.
Buck O Wrote: Jan 18, 2013 10:43 AM
Quite right, but expect leftists to ignore these facts as they pursue their dream of a socialist utopia.

As Guy wrote this week, liberals are arguing spending doesn't lead to deficits or more debt. During his final press conference of his first term Monday, President Obama argued that his vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 came at a time when things were "different," and that Republicans shouldn't be hesitating to increase the debt ceiling this time around. Yesterday on Neil Cavuto's show, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakosky argued that Democrats voting against a debt ceiling increase in 2006 wasn't "real."