<a href='http://www.cato.org/research/articles/derugy-020725.html' target='_blank'>The Cato Institute</a> had a good column about Clinton's and Bush's economic policies, and did some comparisons. Even before this piece came out, I was amazed by how - in a number of areas - Clinton enacted more free market-friendly policies than GWB. Ironic to say the least.

The real difference lies in Congress, IMHO. Though still led by Republicans, the 1994 and 2002 Congresses are nothing alike. The '94 Congress was led by true conservatives and visionaries (Newt Gingrich comes to mind), and was best I can remember. The current Congress is inept in comparison, with two parties (who are not all that different anymore) fighting for the sake of fighting :rolleyes: :bang:

National Health Care,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,now that is a conservative idea!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Well... I did say "some" comparisons and "in a number" of areas. (And wasn't socialized health care Hillary's raison d'etre?)

We still cannot deny the fact that Bush has greatly outspent Clinton in his first two years of office. In related news, the US government is pressing ahead with spending <a href='http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0307/18/a07-221062.htm' target='_blank'>$300 million</a> to persuade welfare recipients to get married.

The one damn thing the people SHOULD be beeyatching about.