In the 2001 fiscal year (which began in October, 2000 and is the last one for which Clinton was responsible), revenue was $1.99 trillion and expenditures were $1.86 trillion. (Figures are in 2005 dollars.)

In the 2009 fiscal year (which began in October 2008 and is the last one for which Bush was responsible, sans about $200 billion from the stimulus), revenue was $2.1 trillion and expenditures were $3.5 trillion. (The recession caused revenue to plummet from $2.5 trillion in the 2008 fiscal year during which spending was $2.98 trillion.)

So even if you discount the spending side by the amount of the stimulus (which Bush wouldn't have supported) that means under Bush, revenue increased 5% while spending increased more than 75% and we went from 4 straight years of surplus to a deficit of more than $1 trillion.

How does Bush's fiscal performance compare to Clinton's? Well, the 1993 fiscal year (the last budget of the first Bush administration) had revenues of $1.15 trillion and spending of $1.41 trillion. So under Clinton, revenues increased 73% and spending increased by 32% and the budget went from deficit to surplus.

And somehow Republicans want to argue they know how to handle fiscal policy?