Sounds exactly like the points against BHO.

What points against the president are you talking about ?

Regan did campaign for balanced budgets and reduced spending, he didn't deliver on either promise.

He did lower taxes and it did stimulate the economy, tax revenues increased dramatically during the 80's - but predictably when politicians see a new dollar in revenue they think think they have the green light for two dollars of new spending and deficits did increase quite a bit in the 80's.

It is not a correct to infer that lowering taxes automatically increases the deficit or reduces the amount of taxes collected.

Reagan's defense spending also got the economy going. (on borrowed money)

I am skeptical that tax rates and tax revenues are inversely proportional.
Sure if the rate was raised to 100% revenue would go down.

I agree with your observation about Regan, unfortunately BareO certainly isn't the first president to embrace using our children's money to fix our current day problems.

Tax rates and revenue are not inversely proportional - but many people do believe that higher tax rates will always result in greater revenues to the treasury. As you point out when rates are raised some people just say "why bother?" and they alter their behavior accordingly.

The laffer curve attempts to quantify this trend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

He'd be the first I know of if he could do that. All he does is sign the budget or veto it completely. All or nothing. Who do YOU think writes the budget? All the Prez can do is send his wish list to Congress. Beyond that, what is it you think he can do?

I realize the president isn't a king. If I were president I'd veto the budget until I got one that passed the following test.

Revnue in = revenue out.

With no accounting games.

And that's why I'll never be president.

I quote you and you question what points: it's clear that you do not understand what you post, plus you cannot spell or use a spell checker and now you cannot recall beyond one post. God bless you.

Well, you also have to understand that you are going to take the heat way more than congress. Which is why I always say that while they are IN THEORY equals, congress gets way more of a pass and the Prez gets way more heat. So to me, that isn't really equal.

I guess we need more politicians who understand, " If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Give the Prez all the heat you want but because of the rules, he can't do it. OTOH, if you light a fire under congress.....

Leaders need to lead. Use the bully pulpit; SELL your ideas directly to the public. FWIW, G Bush failed at this.

Know what that makes it? "May the best orator win". Is that a particularly good idea? I don't think so. Hitler was a master orator and he sold his idea to the public. That is, until he got elected.

No, O do not like the best orator winning.
Maybe, just maybe, if politicians began speaking to the issues, instead of carefully crafted sound bites, the public would become educated in their listening.

Naw. not going to happen, but I can dream.

And maybe if the sun rises in the west tomorrow, I might just believe there is a deity.

As I can I. Briana Banks and Tera Patrick will be in bed with me tonight and Jenna will rape me at work before I go home. :D