FN, you appear to be arguing that anything that was good that happened under Clinton either had nothing to do with Clinton's policies, could have been even better if Republican policies were followed, or was actually the result of previous Republican administrations.

The 1993 Clinton tax policies were anathema to Republicans at the time. They hated them and said so loudly. They all predicted doom and gloom, rising deficits, higher interest rates, and basically the end of Western civilization as we knew it. And yet the exact opposite happened.

Usually when reality doesn't fit with a theory that means the theory needs adjusting.

If Clinton detractors want to argue that Clinton's achievements ( performance of economy under Clinton) must be measured against what would have happened if their advice had been followed, then to be consistent they must sign on to Obama's current argument that things would have been even worse if the stimulus hadn't been done. However it's rare that you see Republicans do that. When it comes to Obama they're not interested in measuring actuals against hypotheticals.

Actual GDP growth rates for US
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

If you want to argue that tax cuts are in and of themselves stimulative, you would have to explain why despite greater tax cuts and associated deregulation, we have had such poor economic growth under the second President Bush where Republicans had the Senate, House and Presidency and had free reign to put their theories into practice. The evidence was in on that which is why we have President Obama today. Time will tell what sort of job he does. But I don't think you can give Republicans credit for the good years of the 1990's.

http://latest-newsonline.com/business-an...the-real-story/