PF: We don't want no stinkin' explanation of why Bush II failed to repudiate supply-side economics

Here we go again, with PolitiFact's FaceBook page keeping a detailed answer on an important question from general view. 

This is what I wrote (reformatted closer to blog standards):

Christina Woodward expressed her apparent incredulity that some people don't see the G. W. Bush years as the final repudiation of supply-side economics. She wrote:

@Brandon and @Blake Obvious right!?

Supposedly it's obvious, for example, that if Bush's tax cuts had actually worked then we'd have full employment or something.

But these people completely forget, in their zeal to discredit supply-side economics, that history makes them look like they're talking out of both sides of their mouths. Who blew up the federal deficit? It was Bush, with his tax cuts (Keynesian cuts they forget to acknowledge), wars and expensive legislation like his wasteful drug benefit program.

Oh, wait. Isn't that government spending? Don't the Keynesians always remind us (when it's convenient) that all government spending is stimulative?

Sorry, folks. You just can't call the Bush administration the disproof of supply-side economics on one hand while giving him credit for exploding the deficit on the other. Your experiment has no control group. The experimental group is a grab-bag of economic approaches.

Get a clue.

This information is restricted in PolitiFact's Matrix.

Blue pill:

Red pill:

Censorship is fun!  And so good for you!