You are wrong. Clinton did nothing to reduce federal spending. In fact spending increased at least by 50% or 1/2 a trillion dollars during Clinton’s term.
The reason the budget balanced for only 2 of clinton’s 8 years was a FLUKE. The dot com bubble created a huge economy that wasn’t really real. all these temporary businesses did pay taxes with increased revenues to the government. In addition oil was $10 per barrel and gasoline was under a dollar during that time which helped the economy which further increased revenues to the government . this is why it balanced. Clinton didn’t have any thing to do with the low oil or the dot com bubble or the internet growth.
Federal spending increases during the Clinton 1990’s in million of dollars:
1990 1,253,130
1995 1,515,884
2000 1,789,216
So you see from these figures that Clinton increased spending almost by one half a trillion dollars.
proof:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html
WHERE did I ever claim that Clinton tried to reduce federal spending? I simply made the statement that Clinton balanced the budget. I also made the statement that we might not agree with how he went about it. And, NO, it is never a fluke. You do have to present something that tries to do it, even if you are being heavily influenced by others.
Bush hasn’t even tried. He took 2 surplus years and turned it into a free for all spending cycle.
BTW, what is Bush’s federal spending for last year: 2.8 or some such ridiculous amount. My point, which I will repeat, perhaps more colorful this time: Bush is a raving drunken Kennedy when it comes to fiscal responsibility.