What's worse: the Clinton administration cutting military funds, or the Bush administration's funding cuts?

Question

We all know how the Clinton adminstration downsized the military. But since the Bush administration increased military funds substantially, let's look at something more recent, relevant, and significant to United States citizens today.
The Bush administration has cut funds from everything you can imagine. Funding has been cut for hospitals, veterans' healthcare programs, pharmaceutical companies, schools, worker safety and health grants, cancer and AIDS research, public healch advocacy groups, fire prevention programs, flood prevention programs, airports, etc...
The list goes on. He has used this to fund his "War on Terrorism". Therefore, the extra funds have been wasted because he has only increased the terrorists' recruitment drive and viciousness.

Answer 1

Bush's for he has made sure all that money went to his family and friends in the corporate world. They have systematically plundered the US Treasury so that all their friends in the war making and oil business have become fantastically rich while the have mortgaged the US to China. These men mean us harm.

Answer 2

Clinton's real military cuts were worse than the imagined cuts you think you see in Bush's budgets. It's laughable for you to even try to say Bush has dangerously cut funding when you look at the budgets which under Bush have set all time record highs for spending on social and benefit programs. Whatever world you are living in, you better wake up and stop lying.

Answer 3

Clinton's military is the one that won in Iraq in about 2 weeks, so it obviously wasn't too harmed by cuts. Since we are now AT WAR. Bush's are surely worse.

Answer 4

Well gee...when a freedom loving democracy spends more on defense than it's nearest rivals combined...well you ought to scatch your head and wonder why....

Generally "defense" costs a lot less than "offense"...and we sure don't seem to be playing defense lately.