Well, I seem to recall a different series of events.
This is culled from Clinton's farewell address:
"Now, first, we proposed a new economic strategy: get rid of the deficit to reduce interest rates, invest more in our people, sell more American products abroad.
We sent our plan to Congress. It passed by a single vote in both Houses. In a deadlocked Senate, Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, not a single Republican supported it. Here's what their leader said. Their leader said our plan would increase the deficit, kill jobs and give us a one-way ticket to a recession. Time has not been kind to their predictions.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, remember -- you remember, our Republican friends said then they would absolutely not be held responsible for our economic policies.
I hope the American people take them at their word."
In 94, after Republicans took control of Congress, there was a deadlock over the budget. Clinton and Gingrich stood face to face and neither would budge. It was an excellent display of principles by both men. For some reason, which I have never seen a reasonable explanation for, the public sided with Clinton that the deadlock was the Republican's fault, even though both were equally to blame. The Republicans had to fold (with concessions). Clinton continued his tight reign of the budget the following 6 years, vetoing a record number of bills, many of them having to do with the budget. You do remember that Clinton has the record number of vetoes, by far, right?
Do you deny, since you call my earlier assertions crapolla, that:
1)Federal income taxes as a percentage of income were at a 35 year low when Clinton left office
2)The balanced budgets and largest surpluses in US history took place when Clinton was the President, yet when those same Republicans remained in Congress and we got a new President we went back into deficits