[Prokopton]

"With Bush all we got was Clinton-lite"

Fiscally, I'm not even sure it's "lite".

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%. Readers of Mises.org may remember that they were warned about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility before he took office. For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%...

[PeterFinn]

Sadly, I agree.

[PubliusToo]

I agree with you. In fact, the Bush Administration has managed an extremely liberal fiscal policy. The Clinton Administration was much more fiscally conservative. During the Clinton Administration, federal revenues were higher and federal spending was lower (as a precentage of GDP) than during the Bush Administration. The net result was that the Bush Administration has turned federal budget surpluses into federal budget deficits.

[untrained skeptic]

Fiscally, I'm not even sure it's "lite".

It's really hard to make a "fair" comparison between the two.

Clinton's policies helped lead us into a situation where we had to go to war to address the problems we faced, and in order to fight that war we had to spend insane amounts of money to equip our military, and we've wasted immense amounts of money as a result of not having a competent and capable intelligence community because Clinton gutted it and drove out most of the competent people.

A lot of Clinton's policies have caused a lot of damage in many different ways, and Bush has been left cleaning up the mess.

However, even if none of that were the case, Bush has been horribly irresponsible with our tax dollars.

Comparing them in a fair manner isn't easy, but it's not hard to see that both have been bad.

I'm inclined to think that Clinton was worse, but the perscription drug plan and illegal immigratons enforcement under Bush may result in him costing us even more in the long run.