They are claiming that Bush was the bigger spender?
Percentage wise
I'm still searching. My fear is, could be - because of the wars and Clinton's "balancing the budget", percentage wise, this could be correct so I guess I'll probably get on the or create a graph that shows the difference between billions and trillions.
This might be a good time to repost what PLD wrote before the 2008 election:
George Bush has been in office for 7½ years. The first six the economy was fine. In spite of the mid-2000 Clinton recession, it was even resilient enough to rebound after 9/11. A little over one year ago:
1. Consumer confidence stood at a 2½ year high;
2. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3. The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4. The Dow Jones hit a record high—14,000
5. Americans were buying new cars, stoking the economy, taking cruises, vacationing overseas, living large!
But Americans wanted change! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes—we got CHANGE all right. In the past year:
1. Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2. Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon, and it had hit well over $4 a gallon;
3. Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4. Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION dollars, with prices still dropping;
5. 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6. As I write, the Dow is probing another low: $2.5 TRILLION dollars have evaporated from Americans’ stocks, bonds and mutual funds investment portfolios.
Yes, in 2006, America voted for change ... and we sure got it! Remember, the President has no control over any of these issues - only Congress. And what has Congress done in the last two years? Absolutely nothing! They certainly haven’t improved the situation. They’ve made it much worse.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Now the Democratic candidate for President claims he is going to really give us change along with a Democratic Congress!
Just how much more change do you think you can stand?