Ah, they both suck when it comes to spending. Republicans strayed from their promise and spent to high heavens. Democrats tell you up front that they’re going to clean out the treasury…..and then they do.
The federal government spent $1.409 trillion in 1993, the year liberal Democrat Bill Clinton became president. Over the next eight years, federal spending grew at an annualized rate of 3.6 percent, reaching $1.863 trillion in 2001, the year George W. Bush became president. For the fiscal year ending last September 30 (fiscal year 2006), the federal government spent $2.654 trillion, for an annualized growth rate of 7.3 percent with George W. Bush in the White House.
Now, you could argue that if the GOP hadn’t taken congress in 1996 and passed the balanced budget amendment, that clinton’s spending wouldn’t have been constrained, but the fact is Clinton stuck to that budget and ended with a surplus.
And it’s the Democrats who’ve pushing for the return to “pay as you go”, something Bush explicitly rejected in the 2004 debates.
On balance, the GOP has been far worse, not only in terms of the record, but because they have claimed for so long to be the party of financial responsibility.
but yes in general an exercise in hypocrisy. washington dc is, after all, a swamp.
There were also more hurricanes under the Bush administration.
What a strawman you build. Congress spends the money and they have spent. Should Bush have vetoed some of the bills? I dunno. Did Clinton use some magic spending machete that I’m not aware of or was it really the congress that spent less?
January 6th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Ah, they both suck when it comes to spending. Republicans strayed from their promise and spent to high heavens. Democrats tell you up front that they’re going to clean out the treasury…..and then they do.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:00 am
BS.
The federal government spent $1.409 trillion in 1993, the year liberal Democrat Bill Clinton became president. Over the next eight years, federal spending grew at an annualized rate of 3.6 percent, reaching $1.863 trillion in 2001, the year George W. Bush became president. For the fiscal year ending last September 30 (fiscal year 2006), the federal government spent $2.654 trillion, for an annualized growth rate of 7.3 percent with George W. Bush in the White House.
Now, you could argue that if the GOP hadn’t taken congress in 1996 and passed the balanced budget amendment, that clinton’s spending wouldn’t have been constrained, but the fact is Clinton stuck to that budget and ended with a surplus.
And it’s the Democrats who’ve pushing for the return to “pay as you go”, something Bush explicitly rejected in the 2004 debates.
On balance, the GOP has been far worse, not only in terms of the record, but because they have claimed for so long to be the party of financial responsibility.
but yes in general an exercise in hypocrisy. washington dc is, after all, a swamp.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
There were also more hurricanes under the Bush administration.
What a strawman you build. Congress spends the money and they have spent. Should Bush have vetoed some of the bills? I dunno. Did Clinton use some magic spending machete that I’m not aware of or was it really the congress that spent less?
January 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Wrong use of straw man, Traveler. You really have to learn how to argue and do research. I got that infor directly from the government.
See the difference betwen you and me is that I deal in FACTS, and you just make stuff up out of your nazi-loving ass.
These are facts pal. Conservatives haven’t dealt in facts since for a long time, so you might want to get reacquainted.