In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

RR, the truly great leader. Would have reduced taxes so the economy
would stimulate. And then I could get a job with good benefits, and
buy my own cell phone.

When Reagan (whom I liked) took office the federal debt was $700 billion,
when he left office it was $3 trillion. Congress writes and passes spending
bills, but the President signs them into law, so most of that spending had
Reagan's signature on the bottom (excepting where Congress overrode his
veto). High spending and low taxes, gee, I wonder where that leads?

Yeah and when he tried to stop it by refusing to sign things and shut
down the government, the Dems and press leaped all over him showing
children from Iowa sitting outside the Smithsonian because it was shut
down. Also, the Dems in Congress rather enjoyed calling every one of his
budgets dead on arrival. Either they are Dem budgets or they aren't.
I hold RR contributorily negligent precisely because he did not
close down the government. But to suggest otherwise is to put Congress
into the functional equivalent of the serial killer writing Stop me
before I kill again on the wall.
BTW: If you look at the Joint Committee on Taxation "scoring" vs
what happened, you will find that the tax cuts actually increased income
(at least compared to what the JCT said was going to happen.) They
called for decreases in revenue every year, there was one year and by
year two rev were above what they were before the cuts. No matter how
you looked at the JCT projections (indivdual years, cumulative) the revs
were well ahead what they were thought they were going to be when the
CC's voted for it.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist