Neither; there never was a balanced budget.  There were projections it would be "balanced," if by "balanced" you mean not including the money they take out of the Social Security surplus every year that supposedly will be paid back later (yeah right).

Bottom line, kiddies: don't depend on the government to take care of you when you retire (or at any time, for that matter). 

Yeah, the government just makes up everything dood! Diebold Halliburton Enron Katrina Guantanamo 9/11 conspiracy!

From the 07/16/07 Economist: "Yet they have one weapon: the surprising strength of tax revenues, which have cut the budget deficit far quicker than anyone expected. The latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office show a budget deficit perhaps as low as $150 billion (though it could be as high as $200 billion) at the end of the year, just over 1% of GDP—less than at the end of Mr Clinton’s first term."

I can't find the graph online but the CBO predicts the budget deficit will shrink dramatically over the next 3-4 years because of increased tax revenues.

B-b-but tax cuts by-definition evil right?? Jon Stewart said so on the Daily Show and he was totally sarcastic and pretentious and the audience laughed at his snarky comments so it must be true. A tax cut leading to... econmic growth... increased tax revenues... deficit reduction: that's unpossible! Unprecedented in the annals of economic history!

Again, why are people discussing economics in a video game forum? But as long as they are... people should go subscribe to The Economist and rent The Commanding Heights. But if you're not an expert you can always leave the economics to U of Chicago Nobel Prize Winners.

Um, what do you believe they should do with the social security surplus? Just put it in a vault somewhere? Where it won't get interest?

This is probably a bad idea to continue this discussion, however...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/

"Real After-Tax Per Capita Personal Income Has Risen By 11.4 Percent – An Average Of Over $3,400 Per Person – Since President Bush Took Office."

"Real Wages Rose 1.3 Percent Over The 12 Months Ending In June. This is faster than the average rate during the 1990s, and it means an extra $782 in the past year for a family with two average wage earners."

Of course, this is taken from the White House website; you may have a source that contradicts that, but it's what the government says.

As for currency valuation, obviously the dollar has fallen against some currencies, most notably the euro.

Your stock market claim makes no sense since just a couple weeks ago the market was at an all-time high.

As for Christmas, it's the stores making their own decisions to start Christmas sales earlier and earlier, put decorations up earlier and earlier, and it's not dependent on the economy. This is a long-term pattern that has been in place long before Bush entered office and will continue after he leaves most likely. Once upon a time you wouldn't see Christmas stuff until after Thanksgiving, but now you see it before Halloween. I guess September isn't too far away...Columbus Day Christmas sale or Labor Day Christmas decorations anyone? It's ridiculous, of course, but your assessment of blame is equally ridiculous.

EDIT:  Forgot you also made a ridiculous claim about consumer spending and a claim about debt (specifically credit card debt).  Although the crazy debt levels in the U.S. are plain, your "sales have dropped" tack was pretty nuts.  Go here:

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann05.pdf

2003-->2004 consumer spending up 6.3%

2004-->2005 consumer spending up 6.9% 

So the Average has gone up. However what has happened to the Median of real wages? (Serious question)

Averages are meaningless when it comes to real wages. The only stat that matters when comparing rising and lowering wages is the median average. Anyone who knows anything about economics or statistics should know why.