Riding on the T last week, I heard a faint groan, and looked up to see several people shaking their heads as they scanned the Globe's front page.

"What's wrong?" I asked. They glanced at me and then each other. "Oh, we're just reading about Clinton's economic proposals."

Incredibly enough, that was their only reaction: an apathetic head-shaking. These were the hard working people who will be most hurt by Clinton's proposals.

Watching the president's economic address last week, I could muster a great deal more than a head shake. I was outraged: yelling at the television, covering my eyes, pulling at my hair. After the initial shock, all I could do was mutter, "How could he do this?" My roommate, a strong Clinton supporter during the campaign, even chimed in to say that he was glad he wasn't a senior in search of a job.

Most presidents are well intentioned, and Bill Clinton is such a president. However, his economic plans are mis-calculated if he believes that they will lead to expansion and decrease the deficit.

Jimmy Carter, the last liberal to serve as president, was also well intentioned. He, like Clinton, wanted to cut the growing budget deficit. He knew that he needed revenue to offset the spending programs on his liberal platform.

But Carter was devoted to that spending, and stuck with high tax rates in an attempt to fund his programs. When Carter was president, personal and corporate income tax rates were among the highest they have been in U.S. history. The result was stagflation: high inflation, growing unemployment, loss of consumer confidence, and, contrary to the president's goal, an ever increasing budget deficit. This type of deficit spending crowds out investment, discouraging growth and job creation.

Jimmy Carter raised taxes and spent the revenue on government programs.

Ronald Reagan acted differently. He recognized that the deficit was a growing problem, but had the judgment to realize that it was a problem of spending, not of revenue. Reagan, a realist, knew that Congress members--whose main goals were re-election--would resist any spending cuts the administration proposed.

So Reagan worked to spur expansion, lowering taxes and giving Uncle Sam less involvement in the lives of Americans.

The result was the most sustained peacetime growth in the nation's history. Nineteen million jobs were created, inflation dropped, consumer confidence was restored, and government revenues grew at a faster rate than they had under Carter's heavy tax rates in the late 1970s.

Under Reagan, the deficit didn't shrink--in fact, it grew. But blaming Reagan for the soaring deficit isn't entirely just; only Congress can cut spending.

Ronald Reagan expanded the economy and avoided deadlock on spending cuts.

Reagan did what he could to help the American economy. He pursued policies that were certain to increase government revenues--and that were certain to pass. By avoiding deadlock on spending cuts, Reagan ensured himself political clout for his economic growth programs.

George Bush--expected to be a Reaganomics disciple--proved himself more similar to Carter than to Reagan. Bush didn't continue the program of low taxes and decreased government intervention that had produced years of growth. Instead, he reverted to raising income taxes and wound up in a recession. The economic downturn would have been worse if not for Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, who kept interest rates and inflation low.