(Dang, I'm supposed to be cleaning my floors, right now. My landlady is going to take back the floor scrubber I borrowed tomorrow. I hate you, TB.)

1. The predictions you mention:

a) probably assume the Bush tax cuts expired, right? Doing a chart where they stayed in place would look a *lot* better for the economy. This is one of the ways that conservatives like to lie with their statistics.

b) evaluated the stimulus package finally hammered out right? Everyone predicted that it would not be enough because:

i. it was shrunk (by Republicans) to smaller than it needed to be, and
ii. it was modified (by Republicans) to feed money away from means that stimulate the economy more and towards means that stimulate the economy less. This was done in an effort to benefit the interest groups that Republicans like to benefit. I wrote a post about this (in an old forum that had the same name as this one) when it was happening. Your response at the time was along the lines of: "Oh, starting to make your excuses already?"

c) are so old and outdated that I can't even figure out why you bother us with them.

2. Chart 1, specifically shows that the actual numbers were nowhere near as bad as CBO predicted *as everyone knew they would at the time*. CBO uses assumptions (like Bush tax cut expiration) that no one expects to be in place.

3. Chart 2, defecits. Seem to be trending downwards. Higher than we would like. You think a massive tax increase is in order? Or is it time to finally dump social security? What's your plan? Hint: roasting Big Bird will not affect the deficits.

4. Bonus chart. I'm still shaking my head about this one. I can't figure out why you'd feature Bush's failure like this. And why you'd point out how full of bs your indictment of Obama is.

5. "'I had no idea what I was talking about back then' is not a good thing to be running on, particularly when we’re discussing promises for the next four years." Predictions are just predictions. Often they include assumptions that no one even thinks are likely - without complete information on what these assumptions are, they are useless for subsequent discussion. Predictions pretty much always diverge from reality sometimes by a lot. Inherrent in both sets of predictions was the fact that nobody really had a handle on how bad the recession was going to be. How quickly the financial system would come back was a huge question-mark, for instance.

6. "We had a mortgage collapse. This had nothing at all to do with tax rates. It had nothing to do with wars."

a) Funny. In the universe you inhabit that mortgage collapse seemed to have nothing to do with executive/fed policy and the anti-regulation plank that supports all conservative platforms. I wish I lived in that universe.

b) "Tax rates"??? Who said anything about tax rates? Mortgage collapse certainly has to do with employment, and it certainly has to do with tax revenues.

c) "Wars"??? ...you get the idea, right.

7. "And then after the collapse, the nation elected a president who, along with a Congress under Democratic control, proceeded to try and nationalize the health care system, spend hundreds of billions more than we had on “picked” recipients, attacked major private industries on several fronts, and created a climate of business uncertainty that’s still out there. Two years of socialist wet dreams."

a) "nationalize health care..." didn't happen. revenue neutral. saved banking. saved auto industry. (forgive the shorthand I really have to do other things)

8. "Their response to Republicans charging up the nation’s “credit card” was to add as much to that debt in four years as Bush did in eight." You need to take another look at that "bonus chart" of yours.

9. "If somebody had been paying the Democrats to step on our economy, what would they have done differently?" Bonus chart.

10. "Which party took over both the House and Senate in 2007?" cloture-proof fillibuster. agreement by minority to block everything. did not last long.