[Luis Gonzalez]

OK...let's limit the parameters of my post to the last twenty years, before that, expenditures during wartimes outpaced Bush's under wartime.

Now, Reagan and Bush I outspent Clinton by a wide margin.

In your book then, was Clinton more of a conservative than Reagan, and did you support him while in office?

So, quit parsing my post, and let's discuss current political realities...shall we?

We didn't give a rat's ass about the fact that Clinton's economic policies were by far more in line with conservative ideology than either Reagan's or Bush I...we just wanted him out of office.

I am using the "we" in the sense that this is what most posters on this site wanted, I am not assuming that you felt the same way. I have a feeling that you helped put him there.

[skip2myloo]

Well, let's not give too much credit to Xlinton.

Let's remember Newt's '94 Contract With America and that Xlinton's spending was largely controlled by a Republican House (where spending bills originate) and they were following the contract.

Remember the impasse that led to shutting down the government in December of '95 ??

[George W. Bush]

Now, Reagan and Bush I outspent Clinton by a wide margin.

Did they amend the constitution when I wasn't looking?

Bush has had a far more powerful position with his congress than these others did. Given 9/11, he has enjoyed a lot more support, has been given a pass even by many liberal voters on both spending and as commander-in-chief.

I think that Reagan proposed huge budgets to get the Dims to pass his defense increases. In other words, he offered the Dims a huge expansion of all spending in order to get his defense spending. His advisers believed it was important enough to make this trade and let the Dims take us into deficit. Even economically, you can defend their judgment in this. The alternative was a much higher level of defense spending forever.

Bush I was simply weak and caved to the Dims on a tax increase, breaking his only campaign promise "Read My Lips...". And the voters didn't like the higher taxes and they didn't like the lie. They liked kicking Saddam out of Kuwait but didn't forgive the broken promise. And Clinton had the Arousal Factor with the female vote.

Clinton's first two years were big-spending liberalism, actually spending more than he probably was comfortable with. He listened to the big-government liberals in Congress. They were wrong. And Gingrich led the GOP to take the House for the first time in, what, 42 years. So Clinton spent big in '92-93, then had to deal with the Gingrich House who then impeached his sorry ass (An' we he'ped!).

It's pretty hard to say that Bush II faces the same problems with proposing a budget to an opposition congress as compared to his immediate predecessors. Or the problems he has had with strong judicial nominees for that matter.

Of his predecessors, only Clinton had a two-year run with both houses of Congress in his own party's hands.

No president is king. The veto has its limits. But some presidents have a better excuse for failing to rein in Congress than others. And the conservative criticism of Bush is that he proposes and campaigns for expanded funding and the intrusion of the federal government into areas like education where it has no constitutional mandate whatsoever.

But the president and the federal government do have a responsibility to protect our borders. It is the original purpose of the federal government. No one seems very serious about it though.

[LandofLincoln]

I NEVER voted for a Democrat, in a national election. I voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Perot (at this point I take some responsibility of electing Clinton), Dole, Bush II. I only wish there was a Republican running this time.

[LandofLincoln]

OK...let's limit the parameters of my post to the last twenty years, before that, expenditures during wartimes outpaced Bush's under wartime.

We are HARDLY at war.