"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

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.

That ignores Reagan's ability to peel away enough Dems from the herd that he
was often able to cancel their majority and pass legislation the Democratic
Party was not in favor of. It also ignores that Reagan was often able to
swing uncooperative members of own party into line, e.g. Howard Baker,
especially when an election was near and they were afraid of not running in
sync with the party's national platform. Baker knew Reagan's proposal for a
Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget was not only unworkable
but was never going to *really* be Republican policy no matter what the
party said. But he agreed to go along with pretending they'd do it if they
could because it made good politics. So the Republicans ran together in
'82, and despite Reagan's approval rating at 40% and unemployment at 10%
they didn't lose ground in the Senate, no small achievement considering the
sour economy (although they got beat-up in the House). So while Reagan lost
some, he won some too, and it's unrealistic to depict him as being unable to
stop the spending spree as he was a participant in that spending when it
suited him.

Contrast that with the Democrat Party and it's traditional circular firing
squad. Not only do they not vote in lockstep as Republicans largely did
under Bush 43, some are quite prepared to throw the President under the bus
if they think that will help their individual chances of being re-elected.

Reagan was quite a character, he really knew how to get people to go along
whether they wanted to or not. Obama seems to lack that ability, and his
party's leaders in Congress are barely able to corral their own members much
less persuade more than a few Republicans to stray from the party line.

I hold RR contributorily negligent precisely because he did not
close down the government.

And he insisted on keeping his own pet projects funded. Defense spending
jumped, procurement in particular which effectively doubled. So let's say
you're broke, and your wife wants a new car and you want a new boat, and
since you can't choose which to get (on credit) you compromise and get both.
Is either one of you in the clear when it comes to financial
irresponsibility?