Alfa Romeo, that was just a straw man argument. Let me explain:

First, demand-side economics does NOT mean balancing the budget. A president can be either a supply-sider or a demand-sider and balance the budget. If it is possible to do, all presidents should have a balanced budget.

Second, demand-side economics, as commonly understood, is a synonym for Keynesian economic theory, the theory propounded by British economist John Maynard Keynes. He proposed increased government spending, discouraged private business investment and encouraged public spending on consumer goods. Yes, Bill Clinton was a Keynesian, but he could have been a Monetarist or an Austrian and still balanced the budget. Rand Paul, a near-libertarian who leans to Austrian economics would have also balanced the budget.

Third, the Congressional GOP didn't vote for Clinton's first budget not because they didn't want it balanced, but because they disagreed with his priorities, what he chose to spend money on and what he chose not to. So that was a misattribution of motives and another straw man.

Fourth, sometimes Keynesianism works and other times it does not. It can create inflation and decrease growth.

Fifth, in your follow-up post you repeat your straw man fallacy by asking "WHY did the Republican Congress want to keep the United States in debt and wipe out future surpluses"? It assumes that was their intention rather than a different one, such as increased military spending for national defense. Your own answer of "they wanted to dry up discretionary income of the United States in hopes of starving off social programs and social welfare." This is another fallacy called Poisoning the Well and it's almost an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Why not just call them all Nazis?
If you were to state that you disagree with GOP priorities that would have been fairer and more accurate in that it doesn't twist their motives. You don't win arguments by misstating the motives of your political opponents, you also lose all credibility.