Dave/Avery I found your posts very interesting and tried to find fact in both. Tuff to find fault with both. But Reagan did increase tax on the middle class, and decreased tax on the wealthy in order to create a trickle down economics. And as an independent I thought he had a great case and I agreed. But it clearly did not work due to income in e******y today. And that also can be open to debate. So I put together a list of tax increases by Reagan. And as you can see he never called them a tax. But Reagan was clever.

Highway Revenue Act, Consolidated Omnibus Act, Tax reform Act, Tax Equity and fiscal responsibility Act of 1982, Social security Amendments of 1983, Railroad Retirement Revenue Act 1983, Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Omnibus budget reconciliation Act of 1985, Superfund Amendments and reauthorization Act, his total tax increase was $132 Billion. And he was careful not to call them taxes. Also he did and some that were recognized as taxes such as the 5 cent national tax on gas, the cigarette tax, there were more but I just can't find them because he confused the American people as the great Tax cutter. But his deficit was due to his defense and tax breaks for the wealthy and also coined the phase debt is okay as long as it's manageable. So the republican philosophy was Born. And they used it. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 created large deficits more than the prior democratic presidents. Carter and Clinton were the only past presidents going back to Carter that actually created a balance budget. Actually if it were not for Carter cutting the defense budget the way he did he probably would have got re-elected. Coin the phrase democrats weak on defense. To be fair to Carter he ran on an agenda to balance the budget and cut deficit spending and he did that. But Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. When Carter and Reagan ran there campaign they were given $10 million in government funds and Reagan was great in his debates. The Republican Party today cannot get poor, middle class, black, union, Hispanic v**es. But Reagan and Bush 41 they did for example 48% of the union v**e, 42% of the black v**e, he just appealed to the independent v**ers and also coin the phrase Reagan Democrats. So what has scared me today the Republican Party that I once knew and periodically v**ed for is gone. But thanks for 2 great post, gave me a lot to think about.

By that I assume you mean that he should put a finger up the place where his head is already, that place being his ass? Would that be so he can use it to help pry his head back out of his ass? Or did you just want him to have some company in that dark place? A finger to talk to in times of loneliness? Or perhaps to be of use wiping the nasty stuff off his nose and lips?

Since you're corresponding with him, could you get him to post a photo of this act of contortionism so we can all see how he does it? Not that anyone wants to try but he may be in line for a Guinness Book of World Records title. Also, please ask him if he can smile for the camera, though that may not show in the photo, I guess, considering where his head is. Well, it was a thought. I'd like to know that he's happy while his head is jammed up in there.

I too was born in the South, a lot farther south than you, Still in the south! Hoodies are being used as a racial statement, and of course to hide their faces while doing criminal acts! I guess that's why they have become a thug statement! The Klan is a self defense group! People who resent being robbed and k**led just so a black thug can act out his resentment of those who WORK and get paid! Now...The NAACP is a purely r****t group, for b****s only, and defends black criminals, But I don't hear you dissing them?

I've said, and I'll say it again, Reagan was vilified for being a tax cutter by the left time and time again. Now the left tells us he was a tax increaser. What Reagan did was work with the Congress he had - unlike certain current incumbents - and he focused on what was critical at the time - national defense and the economy. On the economy he faced the Keynesian impossibility of inflation and recession - and on national defense he needed to up the ante, increase the rate of defense over the Carter increases, in order to achieve what was achieved.

Reagan never controlled Congress so suggesting he did anything unilaterally on the deficit is deceitful. He had to work with a Speaker who called him a dunce - openly and publicly. Yet he achieved very key and necessary objectives - having nothing to do with Keynes, by the way, and interjecting Fox into this discussion shows far more about your looking stupid than anything I said. I have no idea what Fox may or may not say about this discussion, and frankly don't care - and those of you who think using Fox as a way to discredit anyone or any idea show the mindless repetition of what somebody told you about that network.

Lancet is a Journal owned by a person named Elsevier, he also own 200 plus other publications . This journal just prints opinions from other individuals. Elsevier is a Dutch person living in Amsterdam ,. Isn't Amsterdam in a country that Marijuana is legal in the whole country and people openly smoke it on the streets and shops?
Does one or a few persons posting his feelings about a product make that journal a scientific miracle ? I don't think so, only if you want to use it to justify what you want!
I would rather believe what the majority of 300,000 people say as the gospel not one or two! If this was a scientific post at Lancet , where is the data to back it up in his article? I haven't seen a scientist who doesn't back up his thinking with cold hard facts! Other wise it is just a opinion of many opinions ! No I don't assume anything, that just makes a _ _ out of you and me! Show me in this Lancet site ( I can't afford the $100.00's) where he had a few thousand Pot smokers he evaluated and based his summary on the results , and I will be inclined to believe him and you! Until then you are just blowing smoke! Probably Marijuana smoke ! Have a good day!

Lancet is a Journal owned by a person named Elsevier, he also own 200 plus other publications . This journal just prints opinions from other individuals. Elsevier is a Dutch person living in Amsterdam ,. Isn't Amsterdam in a country that Marijuana is legal in the whole country and people openly smoke it on the streets and shops?
Does one or a few persons posting his feelings about a product make that journal a scientific miracle ? I don't think so, only if you want to use it to justify what you want!
I would rather believe what the majority of 300,000 people say as the gospel not one or two! If this was a scientific post at Lancet , where is the data to back it up in his article? I haven't seen a scientist who doesn't back up his thinking with cold hard facts! Other wise it is just a opinion of many opinions ! No I don't assume anything, that just makes a _ _ out of you and me! Show me in this Lancet site ( I can't afford the $100.00's) where he had a few thousand Pot smokers he evaluated and based his summary on the results , and I will be inclined to believe him and you! Until then you are just blowing smoke! Probably Marijuana smoke ! Have a good day!