To borrow a phrase from Chris Wallace, I know that facts are inconvenient things, but I feel the need to reiterate something I said on this forum a couple of years ago.  Thought I'd already set the record straight about your fallacious statements about so-called "trickle-down" economics, but here it is one more time:

Taxation is not a zero-sum game, as proven by the Laffer Curve.  Historically, tax rate reductions have always resulted in ecomonic growth, job creation and rising incomes.  When President Kennedy lowered the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%, the economy took off.  Under "Reaganomics", we saw 96 consecutive months of the greatest peacetime economic expansion this country has ever seen.  In fact, revenues to the Treasury under Reagan increased.  Even the Bush tax cuts resulted in an "unexpected" increase in revenue and reduced the projected deficit to it lowest level in five years for FY 2007, according to the Treasury Department.  It's also why the economy continues to expand (despite rising food prices, a weak dollar and $4.00 a gallon gasoline.)

The only reason for the deficits during the Reagan years was Congress's out-of-control spending.  President Reagan's budgets would have balanced if not for Congress (then under control of the Democrats) which OUTSPENT EVERY REAGAN BUDGET EXCEPT ONE.  In fact, House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the Democrat leadership at the time would have "ceremonies" on Capitol Hill to declare Reagan's budgets "dead on arrival".

And as to your statement:

I seem to recall a couple of years ago, the Republicans had done such a poor job that the country demanded change... do you think any of us want to go back to what he had then?

Yeah, I see your point.  4.6% unemployment, stock market above 12,000 and GDP growth at around 2.6% 4.8%...who'd ever want to go back to that?

Regards,
Scott Perry