Exactly what kind.....

Oh c'mon, you can do better than that.During the Clinton administration, we built the biggest house of cards this nation has ever seen - short of "the roaring 20s".I was a part of it - a part of the 1/2 of 1% of all businesses in the technology sector that were actually sound, made money, and didn't need to cook the books.You argue that we grew the GDP faster than government spending, but what you're forgetting is that most of that growth was in a technology sector that surrendered it all back to the market, plus all the built-up wealth in the 401ks of Americans, when it blew up.Take that back out and Clinton's government grew faster than the GDP by a wide margin.Indeed, when one looks at what happened, you find that there was NO net gain during Clinton's years. None whatsoever. It was all a sham, fraud, and scam. It was Bill Clinton.As for the jobs gained, how many were McJobs? And how many people lost their jobs, and were forced to take a 50% or more paycut, when the tech sector blew up? You conveniently omit all that.... why? Have you talked to any IT people lately - you know, the great folks who profited immensely from all the fraud in that sector of the market, and now are working (if they can find work!) for less than half what they made in the 90s? There's a solid depression right now in IT. Has been since 2000. Wake up and smell the coffee - your "best friend" did that.Clinton did not run a budget surplus. That's a great Lefty lie. Before you make that claim, go look at how much he stole from the Social Security Trust Fund to "balance his budget." If you put that money back where it belongs, you'll find that Clinton - just like Bush I and Reagan - ran a deficit. There was NO year in which Clinton actually ran a surplus. Just like the rest of his presidency, it was ALL smoke and mirrors.When he wasn't busy getting blown under the Oval Office desk he was robbing the futures of tens of millions of Americans, destroying their retirement security and the future stability of our government.Fiscally, Clinton's presidency was an unmitigated diaster.Yes, there was more stock ownership by families than ever before. But 90% of those tech stocks were and are worthless. Take your pick. Lucent. Nortel. Winstar. MCI/Worldcom. Unisys. I can name hundreds. All either worthless or selling for a small fraction (in many cases, 10% or less) of their "boom" prices. Many great American names perished along with the fraudsters, having written leases or underwritten loans that were based on nothing more than deceit and lies. Lucent was nearly killed by Winstar and MCI - between the two of them (the two largest bankruptcies in the sector) that once-iconic figure of American technological innovation - Bell Labs - was nearly driven out of business.Stock ownership? Or did people really buy a stack of very expensive firestarters? Who enabled all that fraud and did nothing to crack down on it? Who had an attorney general more concerned with burning kids to cinders in Waco than the fact that virtually every technology company in the United States was robbing the shareholders blind so that a few insiders - many of them Clinton's friends and political allies - could profit? Bill Clinton.Reagan intentionally overspent on an arms race with the USSR, judging (correctly) that the USSR economy would collapse before ours did. He was right. We got rid of a cold war menace that had threatened to obliterate us in an instant for more than 30 years - without firing a single shot. Do you really think that nuclear war would have been cheaper - and more humane - than the way Reagan went about it? If you think there was a better way, how come nobody else had managed it - most of them Democrats - during those previous 30 years? Say what you want about Reagan - he certainly did it right when it came to the USSR, and in my opinion, it would have been cheap at twice the price we paid.As for the "mere" 29% increase, you might want to go back and check your history again. Clinton's submitted budgets would have grown spending by more than DOUBLE that rate; the House refused to appropriate the money.Bush's deficit, in terms of percentage of GDP, is "right up the middle" for peacetime. That's incredible, really - we're not at peace. We have an entire religion that has essentially declared war on our way of life. Like it or not, preventing mushroom clouds from sprouting over Manhatten costs money. I assume you would prefer not to have video of the first nuclear detonation in an American City on CNN tomorrow morning.... if I'm wrong, well, what are you doing posting on THIS blog? Go find one run by our favorite North Korean - or Iranian - madman.I do not in any way defend the current administration's spending spree when it comes to pork and social programs. It is a disgrace. Spending on national security and defense is, unfortunately, necessary - and a proper function of the federal government.Bulding "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska is not, and Bush's refusal to wield the veto pen is responsible for that fiasco.With that said, it is far better to honestly spend money than to put together a complete house of cards based on artifice and fraud, then trick the American people into throwing their hard-earned retirement nest eggs down the toilet so that people like Mark Rich, McAuliffe and Hillary can profit from it. Tens of millions of Americans lost ALL, or nearly all, of their retirement savings when the fraud-based economy of the 90s had the wheels come off. McAuliffe made $8m from an "inside draw" on the Global Crossing IPO, and of course bailed before it blew up. Did he give any of that money back to those who lost their entire 401k accounts? No.And oh, by the way, the recession that orgy of greed and disgrace spawned, along with the eight trillion dollars of wealth that disappeared overnight both happened on the watch of and were the responsibility of one Bill Clinton.That eight trillion dollars lost was enough to run the entire federal government for four years.Don't tell us how wonderful Clinton was in terms of economics. His presidency was an absolute disaster in economic terms, and no amount of revisionism will ever change that.Just ask any of the people who are now working at Walmart for $9/hour rather than being retired and living the life of luxury that Clinton's economy supposedly brought them.