Why didn't the Democrat congress under Reagan cut spending?

I'll ask again... But first... Let’s go through the numbers. Domestic spending in 1980 was at $128.9 Billion, during the last year of the Carter Administration. In the last year of the Reagan Administration, Domestic spending was at $168.2 Billion. Domestic spending, by itself, was only $122.7 Billion dollars... show more I'll ask again...
But first... Let’s go through the numbers. Domestic spending in 1980 was at $128.9 Billion, during the last year of the Carter Administration. In the last year of the Reagan Administration, Domestic spending was at $168.2 Billion. Domestic spending, by itself, was only $122.7 Billion dollars less than the defense spending. Now let’s look at Social spending, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other entitlement programs. In the last year of the Carter Administration (1980) Social or “Mandatory” spending was at $262.1 Billion dollars, close to the amount of money spent on defense in 1988. At the end of Reagan’s administration, Social spending was at $486 Billion! Add the Domestic and Social spending together and you get $654.2 Billion, a figure that is far greater than Reagan’s defense spending.


Now, since democrats are the one's who attacked Reagan for spending - why didn't they propose a balanced budget???
If they love their country sooooo much and if they are sooooo fiscally responsible, why didn't they cut spending???

Under Clinton we had a REPUBLICAN congress, which cut spending by 3.5% of the GDP. Welfare reform was passed, NAFTA was passed, S.S. reform was passed. Capital Gains was CUT. Clinton was smart in moving to the middle - you can't thank any democrap congress for that surplus.

Sources:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc1001... Revenues, Deficits, Budget 1965-2008
Update: I just want to add that congress controls the budget...
Update 2: I guess no one is willing to accept truth here? Where are the replies?
3 answers 3