[drynoc]

When Reagan took office, the economy was already in the tank, thanks to the Congress and Nixon/Ford/Carter. The first thing he did was de-regulate the price of gas. He then got a Democratic Congress to pass a cut in the tax rate (as opposed to a one time rebate, which is worthless). During his first two years in office, the economy bottomed out at nearly 10% unemployment. Then the growth kicked in, and continued unabated until late in the first Bush term. Meanwhile, tax revenue soared, thanks to the tax cut (John Kennedy had already proved this would happen). But, and Reagan is partly to blame for this, spending also soared. Remember, all spending originates in the Congress. The President has nothing to do with originating spending bills. There was a brief slow down late in the Bush term, which did not last long, and which was already over (growth had kicked in again) prior to the Clinton tax increase. Thanks in part to Clinton, the GOP took over both houses of the Congress in 1994, and for a short while reeled in the spending, and got Clinton to sign both NAFTA and the welfare reform bill, both of which had salutary effects on the economy. Unfortunately, neither Bush II or the GOP made any effort to control spending, and we are once again heavily in debt. Building roads and schools will not bring us out of the recession - FDR tried that, and it didn't work. The only jobs that matter are those that are created by the private economy with funds voluntarily provided for that purpose. If I give a dollar to Wal-Mart and they use it to make more money for themselves, bravo. It's all voluntary, and everyone wins, and the money goes where the market place said that it should. If the government takes my money and builds a school or a road with it, nothing is gained. I'm already taxed for those purposes, and the funds are steered away from the market where the best decisions are made. Schools and roads are the Democratic party paradigms to be used to shame people into doing what they want. Who could be against schools and roads? But more is not necessarily better. Local governments pull the same trick: whenever they are faced with budget difficulties, they always threaten to lay off police and firemen.