[SoConPubbie]

I will support any candidate in 2016 who has the spine to cut federal spending. Because I look at long term.

Both your examples were fallacious examples from the perspective of being the "complete package" where conservatives are concerned.

G.W.B. because he never was a fiscal conservative, ever.

Reagan WAS the "complete package" where being a conservative was concerned, but, he never had a Republican House of Representatives. You know, that part of congress that is supposed to have the power of the purse where all legislation is supposed to start.

If with the spending tripling, he was still able to cut the size of various parts of the Federal government more than 5% and closer to 10% in some cases.

If you are going to present your case, present it with an "Apples to Apples" comparison and not an "Apples to Tire Iron" comparison.

[SoConPubbie]

My point with G.W.B. is that he never professed to being an economic, small-government, or limited-government conservative as Reagan did.

[SoConPubbie]

With respect to Congress during Reagan’s tenure and the resultant tripling of spending, it get’s even worse, as during his last two years, the Democrats had both the House and Senate.

[entropy12]

Go back and check how many spending bills Reagan vetoed.
After you do that research we can continue discussion if Reagan was a fiscal conservative.

Any president who allows spending to TRIPLE and not exercise enough vetoes on most of those spending bills is a fiscal liberal.