Reagan's death

[millwx]

yes, reagan had a lot good points, but limiting federal spending wasnt one of them.

Actually, while spending did go up, Reagan did better than most.   Here are the numbers for the past several Presidencies:

Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP (NOT using percentages is the mistake most people make):

Under LBJ: 20.3% increase
Under Nixon: 27.2% decrease
Under Ford: 2.0% increase
Under Carter: No change
Under Reagan: 7.9% decrease
Under GWH Bush: 7.5% decrease
Under Clinton: 26.7% decrease
Under GW Bush: 20.6% increase

Many believe defense should be left out of this, likewise international discretionary outlays.  So, here's the same list for domestic discretionary outlays:

Under LBJ: 20.0% increase
Under Nixon: 2.8% increase
Under Ford: 21.6% increase
Under Carter: 4.4% increase
Under Reagan: 34.0% decrease
Under GWH Bush: 9.7% increase
Under Clinton: 8.8% decrease
Under GW Bush: 16.1% increase

These two lists are very bi-partisan.  Two presidents, one from each party, were clearly the best at controlling spending.  Ditto for the worst.

The two best: Reagan and Clinton
The two worst: LBJ and our illustrious current president GW Bush

Yes, Reagan increased spending dramatically, but his policies expanded the GDP greatly as well... providing more money to spend.  Relative to GDP, he and his administration did an excellent job controlling spending.  So, why the huge deficits?  Non-discretionary spending, not as much under the president's control (this is why most examine discretionary spending to judge a president's spending), increased dramatically.  I'm not saying he was perfect; clearly, he could have done something about those deficits.  But, he gets a bad rap on the spending issue.  In the past four decades Reagan and Clinton have done the best job controlling spending.  LBJ and GW Bush have been disastrous in terms of controlling spending.

[millwx]

That doesn't excuse him for raising spending without raising the GDP to counter the change.

I was going to counter similarly, but it's really beside the point.  Frankly, I wasn't a big fan of the Reagan policies - I'm somewhat of a deficit hawk.  But that is neither here nor there.  I'm not arguing policies or reasons.  I'm just looking at the bottom line... "spending" as defined by the standard yardstick "non-defense discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP".  With this bottom line, any criticism of Reagan's overspending is unfounded (yes, there are other "yardsticks" that may show otherwise... I'm not arguing this... I'm merely looking at a standard guideline since 1962).  Using this yardstick, Reagan and Clinton did a phenomenal job controlling spending.  LBJ and GW Bush were (are) horrendous.  This is not a matter of politics or partisanship... each party has someone to gloat and someone to be ashamed of... just bottom line facts.  And my original point was, based on this data, Reagan should not be criticized for spending.