[Owen]

Ronald Reagan signed spending bills, too. The deficit increased during his tenure, and those were relatively good economic times.

Bush has to grow the economy. He is trying to do that by stimulating. One stimulates by cutting taxes and increasing spending. There is little choice in the matter if you want to try to retain some semblance of morality in the WH and deny it to the Democrats.

[HostileTerritory]

There is a chart circulating on this site that shows how Reagan cut federal spending in several categories in his first three years where Dubya has pushed for DOUBLE-DIGIT increases. Do an author search on AntiGuv. It will come up.

It shocked the hell out of me. Reagan stood up for principle. Dubya is standing up for... um...

[RJCogburn]

Ronald Reagan signed spending bills, too. The deficit increased during his tenure, and those were relatively good economic times.

True. See my #40 for that subject.

[Ed_in_NJ]

"There is little choice in the matter..."

Therein lies the plight of the citizenry -- those that refuse to vote for the Democrat Organized Criminal Enterprise (DOCE) either endorse whatever the pubbies do, or stay home (or "waste" their vote on a third party).

[Dane]

Ronald Reagan signed spending bills, too. The deficit increased during his tenure, and those were relatively good economic times.

Actually during Reagan's tenure the deficits were a greater % of GDP than they are now.

I wonder when the malcontnents will post the jpegs or gifs of Reagan being tarred and feathered.

[ninenot]

One stimulates by cutting taxes and increasing spending.

While stimulation is good--look at what we get with those dollars. More NEA members (Education bucks), more Gummint bureaucrats (Pharmaceutical bill), and more Corporate Farmers (the Ag. Bill.)

I'd like to find a couple of bucks to stimulate INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION!!!!