and the fact that you won't accept the statistics from the government regarding the economy or even the post from David Bonyer (Democrat) about the periodic legislation to extend the debt limits tells me that you're either a partisan who doesn't care about the truth or someone who has ecomonic blinders on. If you wish to dispute my claims, provide links to credible sources because I'm definitely not taking your word for it.

Once again...

Bush inherited the world's strongest, most robust economy.

According to the official statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the GDP figures during the last two years of the Clinton Administration and going into the Bush Administration are as follows:
1999 Q1 3.1%
1999 Q2 1.7%
1999 Q3 4.7%
1999 Q4 8.3%
2000 Q1 2.3%
2000 Q2 5.7%
2000 Q3 1.3%
2000 Q4 1.9%
2001 Q1 1.3%
2001 Q2 0.3%
2001 Q3 -1.3%
2001 Q4 1.4%

As the numbers clearly show, the economy started slowing in 2000 Q3, months before Bush took office. In fact, the last quarter of 2001 had higher growth than two of the quarters in Clinton's last year. If the economy is bad now then you'd have to say it was worse in 2000. You can't have it both ways.
Bush cut taxes for the very richest people in the country.

The tax cuts enacted by Congress last year have only started to come into effect. The only cuts that were in effect last year reduced the lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%. That was where the $300 and $600 checks originated - the cut was made retroactive to the start of the year. Far from cutting the rich's taxes only, those cuts affected everyone who pays taxes. Bill Gates got a check for $600 and so did I, so the charge the cut was only for the very rich is bogus. The total for the tax cuts that were in effect last year were perhaps $30-40 billion, far from a crippling blow to the national tax revenues of approximately $2 trillion.

The economy went into a recession.

The standard definition of a recession is two or more quarters of negative growth in GDP. As those BEA numbers clearly show, we never even met that definition of a recession. The officials that declared we were in a recession starting last March as the same ones who were unable to see that the 1990-91 recession had ended over a year and a half before they said it did (just days after Clinton won the 1992 election) so their credibility is dubious at best.
Using the BEI numbers, the quarterly GDP changes for 1990 through 1992 were as follows:

1990 Q1 5.1%
1990 Q2 0.9%
1990 Q3 -0.7%
1990 Q4 -3.2%
1991 Q1 -2.0%
1991 Q2 2.3%
1991 Q3 1.0%
1991 Q4 2.2%
1992 Q1 3.8%
1992 Q2 3.8%
1992 Q3 3.1%
1992 Q4 5.4%

Notice that the recession lasted from 1990 Q3 through 1991 Q1. It was over long before the start of 1992. It's hard to get out your message when your opponent has no hesitation about lying out his ass and the Press was too lazy or to partisan to check the facts. When Bush (41) tried to point out that we weren't in a recession in 1992, he was loudly ridiculed by the Press for being out of touch. Whether it was bias, laziness, or sheer stupidity, the Press did the country a real disservice in 1992 by not reporting the facts.

This isn't meant to rehash the 1992 election but to show how Clinton lied about the economy then, the Press failed to report the truth, and the officials who claim we're in a recession now were wrong then, so they aren't exactly a credible source.

Now that there isn't enough money, Bush wants to increase the debt owed by everyone, not just the richest to whom he gave the tax cut.

Having already shown that the tax cuts didn't go to the richest, they went to everyone, I'll now address the other point here. The National Debt has increased every year for decades, including growing over a trillion dollars during the Clinton Administration despite our supposed surplus. The legislation to increase the debt limit is something that gets passed ever year or two as a matter of routine by Congress.

Now, spending has increased in recent months, primarily as a result of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11th. Many billions are being spent to recover from the damage inflicted on us and many billions more are being spent to inflict damage on the enemy. A lot of money is also being spent to replenish the weapons inventory for weapons used in Afghanistan and in previous conflicts. At the same time as spending has increased, the economic slowdown has reduced revenue collections. The effects of the slowdown on revenues are far more pronounced than the piddling tax cuts enacted last year. As this article shows, putting money into the hands of consumers is a good thing for the economy.

Basically, your post was full of inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. If you honestly believe what you wrote, then you need to do some research because you've been lied to, probably for a long time.