[BufordP]

War on terror? No question we could speculate most Democrats would have addressed the situation much the same way Clinton had. But Republicans? It would wager it's a 20-80 / 80-20 proposition. You might count on 20% of Democrats to do the right thing ... and 80% of Republicans. I don't find President Bush extraordinary in that respect. Who on FreeRepublic.com would have not done the same things? I would not have pussy-footed around with the U.N. for 11 months the way he did.

Cutting taxes? Given the Republican majorities in both houses Bush's tax cuts were weak, back-loaded and sunsetted.

Here's the congressional make-up by party during Reagan's tenure.

Democratic Party majority counts highlighted in yellow.
Source:
The office of the Clerk U.S. House of Representatives
Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present

	House				Senate
	Reps	Dems			Reps	Dems
1981-1983	192	243	51		53	46	7
1983-1985	167	268	101		54	46	8
1985-1987	182	253	71		53	47	6
1987-1989	177	258	81		45	55	10

On Spending, Bush is no Reagan

Presidential Vetoes/Overridden (1789 to Present)

Yeah, Kudos to the President for the WOT and not much else. Bush is no Reagan.

[MACVSOG68]

I would not have pussy-footed around with the U.N. for 11 months the way he did.

So when 141 marines were slaughtered in Lebanon, you would not have cut and run? That trajedy may have been popular with a Democratic House, but provided a legacy that when combined with the inaction of Clinton for 8 years helped explain the growth of terror as a tool to achieve the ultimate goal of an Islamic empire. Until George Bush, we had completely failed to respond adequately to terrorism.

Cutting taxes? Given the Republican majorities in both houses Bush's tax cuts were weak, back-loaded and sunsetted.

And designed to encourage investment, which it did and turned around a recession. Given the war on terror, and the President's resolve not to give up on the tax cuts in spite of the massive costs associated with that effort, I would say, they were hardly weak. After 9/11, any Democrat and many Republicans would have quickly passed tax increases. I think it likely that any President will use the veto pen when the House belongs to the opposition party. Someone did a study or a book that looked at spending when the same party was in total control (as now) and when there was opposition in the Congress. Amazing findings. Didn't matter what party it was. Spending increased with the same party in control. As for Reagan's vetoes, yes he vetoed spending bills, but most of the large ones were overridden with no change. Other small ones were simply shifted to one of the 13 appropriations bills. But no argument. Spending did not increase under Reagan by anywhere near the same % as Bush. And no, I don't know that any Freeper would have done what Bush has done on the WOT. Cannot speculate...neither can you.