A few problems with your issues.

1. Since your subject is tax cuts - and so says the title - then begin there, not with spending. Congress controls spending by budgeting; their job, not the president; a job Congress has failed to do since fiscal 1996 for fiscal 1997. Congress is your nemesis, not the President.
2. Your title also suggests "recent decades," and I presume you mean Reagan, forward. Well, the fact is, from Reagan through the Biden presidency, Rs and Ds have split the 44 years, 20 years: D, 24 years: R. But presidents don't do legislation other than signing them, so it's Congress who controls both tax rates and spending, and the annual budget.
3. Over the last 44 years, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump have had the White House: Rs, five times, Ds 4 times, with the 5th R, Trump, 1 of 4 yrs in office, and what Congress will look like in the 120th Congress remains to be seen.
4. Over the last 44 years, Rs have had the House in 14 2-yr congresses, and 14 6-yr senates, while Ds have had the House 9 2-yr congresses, and 10 6-year Senates. So, in both House and Senate, Rs have a slight edge, but again, the 120th Congress is yet to be determined. If history holds, it will go to Ds.
5. But, relative to the above apparent advantage of R power in WH and Congress, you ignore that both Clinton and Obama signed tax cut legislation; Clinton in 97 [104th congress, with Ds holding the House] and Obama in 2010 [111th congress, with Ds holding House & Senate] and Obama again in 2012 [112th congress, with Ds holding the Senate], which virtually evens the score, not including the coming 120th congress. And you ignore that Kennedy in '63 signed significant tax cut legislation, passed by a D House and Senate. A little before Reagan, but just to demonstrate your hype against Trump, ignoring the Dems do tax cuts too, is exposed.

With this background, I declare your hand-wringing just more Democrat TDS and useless woke mumbo-jumbo. Your best opti0on: ignore Trump. He has little to do with your day-to-day. Mine, too.

Old grannies arent pretty.

As if beauty is just skin deep

No, not just keeping women silent in church. As demonstrated by Don Lemon and crew, the woke don't want church, period.

Why? It will not just happen. If anything, because blacks becoming a majority will just enrage those who already think there is systemic, or institutional racism now, will become even more enraged than now. And, in fact, since 1619 Prof and BLM think whites, being a majority now in US, will not end their white privilege racism when blacks, who currently represent about 13% of the population, so your conversion threshold is still a ways off, become the majority. And how do Latinos and Asians join them? politically, sur4, that can happen, but not 100%, and it does not alter race, as if it exists at all when it doesn't.

The problem with drawing attention, in the mid-20th century to slavery is that slavery was abolished a century earlier, but it took Democrats that 100 years to catch up, and, in reality, still are behind the curve, claiming "1619 project" and "BLM" as if systemic racism is still a legit problem. No, because "systemic," or "institutional" racism implies that racist statutes are still on the books. Nope. 1619 and BLM complain about it but have never, ever demonstrated a single racist statute still on the books, fed or state, that is current law. No, the problem is, and has been since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, individual racism, not systemic. That is individual human behavior, and as we have discussed relative to gun control, we will never be 100% successful in statutory behavior control.

The singular problem with woke being "trendy" is that the word, itself, is past tense, just as anything "progressive" is, dating back to 1848. What kind of trend is that?

No, acknowledge women as the ultimate ate creation, deserving of a man's respect and love.

So why did someone take away my right to suffer for my own sins and crimes? [Your #33]

Nothing was nor will be taken from you, other than your potential expectation that your sins don't matter. I'm not saying you think that, just that the potential is there for anyone to think that way. The point of Christ's atonement is simply that for some sins that can be committed, for which each of us must repent in order to take advantage of the atonement to be forgiven, or sorrow for committing them, and even a commitment to not commit it again - a requirement of repentance - is not all there is to it. We must also find a way to compensate those against who we sin. For example, if we steal something from someone, part of the repentance process is returning the stolen item to the person it was stolen from. That sounds easy enough, but for some sins committed, such as murder, we have no power, no matter how much we wish it were so, to compensate the person we murdered. But the atonement includes even forgiving the sin of murder. Christ will compensate the murder victim by the atonement. Otherwise, justice could not be satisfied, and justice, to be fair to all of us, must be justified. Christ, himself, is that justification. Our sincere repentance, otherwise, is still required, and that may take a very long tome to satisfy the gift of the atonement.

The point of all of that is that, come the final judgment, ifs we have properly repented of our since, we may acknowledge that we committed a serious sin against someone else, and we did the best we could to compensatre that person we sinned against as part of that repentance, then Jesus, our Judge, will tell us, in effect, "I rememberer that sin no more," and will take it from our "ledger" because the atonement already has compensated that aggrieved person, and we are free of responsibility for the sin. That's how the atonement works. Only a god could fulfill the requirement of atonement, because he was perfect and sinless, yet suffered for all of us. Yes, I am willing to accept Christ's full sacrifice in my behalf. My only necessary compensation is to act the best that I can, and to always forgive others their trespasses against me.

Not that I remember and certainly not to my knowledge.

Before everyone's birth on Earth, and even before Adam & Eve were created ion the flesh, we all lived with Father, and Christ, and Satan and his minions, in a premarital existence as spirits which inhabit each of our physical bodies, now. In that great assembly, we were told the plan for our mortality, and that Christ [known by the name of Jehovah on that premarital assembly] would, in his mortal generation, atone for our trespasses against the commandments of God and one another, thus allowing us a path to return to our Father at the conclusion of our mortal lives, conditional on our obedience to Him. Satan rebelled against the plan, wanting to be the Savior, himself, but his proposal was to force all of us to be obedient on order to return to God. Thus, he wanted all the glory to be had for his work to force our obedience. Thus, we had a choice: accept the plan Jehovah proposed, or Satan's proposal. We all voted. 2/3 of us voted for Jehovah's plan, and we, including you and I, and everyone else ever born on Earth, were granted the privilege of mortality; the remaining third voted for Satan's plan. Not only Satan, but the full third with him were cast out of heaven, and continue to exist only as spirits, which is an incomplete existence. We are meant to be, in eternity, spirits surrounded by a physical, and, ultimately, resurrected perfect being of spirit and incorruptible flesh. Everyone born on Earth will resurrect, the just and the unjust, whereas the third who followed Satan will remain as incomplete, spirit-only beings. That is when you accepted and voted the plan Jehovah [Christ] proposed. None of us, ion mortality, remember this pre-mortal period so that we must believe the principles on faith rather than perfect knowledge by un-covered memory.

These are the facts you accepted, then, because it all makes sense, because all of it is true.

The last contact with both his parents-we are told was when they negligently lost her holy charge; a gift from god too!. 

One must know the culture of the Jews in that period. Among some, it continues to this day. Mary and Joseph did not travel to Jerusalem from Nazareth with young Jesus alone - a distance of about 100 km. There were many from Nazareth with whom they traveled - likely even relatives. That culture, then, and now, had very close family relations beyond a nuclear family - much more so than we are, today. It is reasonable to assume Mary & Joseph thought Jesus was with some other family or friends well known to them. And yes, there was an occasion in Galilee when Jesus was teaching a large crowd; so large that Mary and other sons [likely of Joseph], who, by that time, was likely dead - he falls out of mention at the conclusion of that Passover journey when Jesus was 12. It is also mentioned that Mary & Joseph made this Passover journey, again, very likely with a large group, every year, so the journey when Jesus was 12 was not unique, further contributing to the suggestion that thinking that Jesus, at 12, was traveling with others is not doubtful.

This is why I maintain that language is inseparably tied to culture. Different cultures; different languages, and without intimately knowing the culture, the language is virtually impossible to know well enough for accuracy of understanding. That is a problem that plagued Bible translation. That is why I maintain that understanding the Bible needs more than simple reading if it, cover-to-cover. It requires sincere prayer to seek better understanding.

And the general subjugation of women was ongoing until comparatively recently.

I suggest it continue yes to this day, since we have Justices on the USSC who cannot define what a woman is, or cannot face the truth that they know all to well, but it is not, today, a popular definition among the woke [which is a dead movement] since it so gender definitive.

The most common test is whether the message aligns with the Bible. 

There is much more to it than merely comparing anyone's statements against the Holy Bible.

For example, how about this "message:" "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." [Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 3: 4, 5] There is not one word in this message from Satan that is not true. And if anyone else said the same words, how are you justified to judge them?

How about this message: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" [Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 1 - 3] This message is from Jesus Christ, Himself; part of the Sermon on the Mount.

I am convinced that both messages speak only the truth. As both message are biblical, I suggest you're ignoring the first, but also the second. Is the Bible in conflict with itself, because both speak to judgment, don't they?

nevertheless, what is in one’s mind is never ours to judge, because we neither know another’s motivation nor experience unless it is revealed by them, and even then, to judge that one is possesses by Satan can only be by revelation from God, or by direct communication to us by Satan

Re: your #16,

are you finished with your premature efactulation? Clean-up, pls.

very few people genuinely have original ideas

Do you include yourself in that indictment? You did not bother to prove the point in your debate on this subject, so I question the legitimacy.

[if you are an atheist] you have no "team" that can reliably perpetuate those values

I'm acquainted with many atheists who are perfectly at ease and at home with their reliable perpetuation of values which I happen to share, though not sharing their atheism. Do you think all atheists are blithering idiots? Ditto the proof of the point. A mirror may need to be consulted.

Even Paul and Luke seem confused on the matter. Refer to I Timothy 2: 12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Then refer to Acts 21: 8, 9 "And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy."

Such seems to contradict claim that the Holy Bible is infallible. These are not unique, differentiating verses. the Bible is filled with them. Up to me, I say no one ought to be prohibited from speaking their mind in church as long as the commentary is respectful, delivered in soberness, and without animus toward anyone. Don Lemon's [formerly of CNN] delivery a week or so ago was none of these conditions, and he is not a woman, anyway, but was still offensive in church.

Politics back and forth aside, peaceful assembly for purposes of protest in France is guaranteed by the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which, itself, is active, constitutional law in France. So, if Antifa, by their opposition to the feminist Nemesis Collective ended up with the murder of Deranque for being a right wing volunteer, then the shooter ought to be detained, investigated, and, if found too have committed the murder, prosecuted in court. Murder simply has no excusable purpose, even if Deranque holds a particular political belief, be it nazism or antifa, or against eating quiche.

The ten commandments are fine, but Christian Theology really maintains [or should] that they were fulfilled by Christ's two: love God, and love your fellow man. If those two are followed, the 10 are not an issue.

I understand what influence of Satan is, I don't need a primer. But judgment is not yours by Christian Theology.

He [Stephen] is doing Satan’s work.

Who made you judge? I'm willing to allow Stephen to continue an education, which he acknowledges in profile, and I agree with the position. What more do you want?

That he acknowledges being a non-Christian in the same profile is merely stating a current position, and not a conclusive end-game. It may stay that way; it may change, but that is entirely up to Stephen, and neither of us ought to draw conclusions now. The way I see it, he has an open Bible on the shelf or on the desk from which he is drawing conclusions. I don't agree with all of them, but that's me, and that's him. So be it. How is that a Satan thing?

By the way, I know many Christians who don't know their stuff as well as Stephen does. He knows how to research, and. of late, doing a much better job of finding inconsistencies in scripture. The Bible is not infallible. period. That he's willing to do the research is admirable. I can accept the Bible anyway, but Stephen, at present, cannot. At least he's willing to say it. That's not ignorance.

Stephen admits he did not get enough education in his profile.

Stephen and I have had our ups and downs, but, on the whole, I appreciate his challenges to me. Sometimes, he argues a point I'd not considered, and I always like the challenge to rethink my thinking from a different perspective. Stephen offers that. But your accusation that he admits not getting enough education is not how I read his profile. I think I understand what he's saying; not that his education has been insufficient, and I have no idea, but I've grown to appreciate his point of view and he expresses it well. I think he's saying that given the time we have to address being educated, it's getting shorter and shorter with each passing year and there is so much yet to learn. Stephen is retired, so am I. so we're not nearly as young as you are. He deserves an apology from you.

I didn't ask anyone to die for my crimes or sins or misdemeanours.

Fine. So what? There will come a time when you realize that you did ask. Better sooner than later, but you're really here now because you asked and accepted the fact.

Sorry, but my personal Christianity does not do magic 3-in-1. Three separate, distinct Gods. Whether or not they are equal, and I personally doubt it since there is no purpose in that, I suppose is up to them to define. I will not presume to decide for them. People seem to do too much of that. Too much marxism for my liking.

Christianity is a monotheism religion. They believe in a single God.

I m a Christian, and that is not my belief. Yes, I believe there are multiple gods, and there ever will be, but only one whom I revere and worship in highest regard, and that will also always be so.

That there is only one true God.

That, alone, takes Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, which are each gods, themselves. besides God, the Father. They are united in purpose that we progress to ultimately become gods, ourselves, [few will, considering the nu beer of us, but that remains the ideal existence] but always acknowledging God, the Father as our Father, deceiving of our worship of Him as such.

Jesus said Satan is ruler (God) of this world.

But this world is a temporary condition, as is Satan's rule of it.

a few members here on this forum insist that there were Christians in Jesus' time.

There were, by record, people who followed Christ during his mortal lifetime, but there is not biblical record in existence today that these followers called themselves "Christians" during Christ's mortal life. Within 10-20 years following his death and resurrection, yes, followers began calling themselves Christians. "Disciple" was the follower term from the beginning of his ministry. What they called themselves is of little effect, frankly. That they recognized who and what he was is of importance, because the other is just a tag to apply, not the thing, itself.

I'm sure that it would have been mentioned had this been the case. [from your post #40]

There is much information the Bible is missing. I am convinced there is much that is missing from what was originally written, whether by innocent misplacement, or deliberate deception, and everything in between. For example, there is no record whatsoever that Mary, mother of Jesus, even met with him after his resurrection.

I assure you Satan knew and knows who, what, and why Jesus is, was, and will be. They are brothers, after all. Satan's purpose in the wilderness was to plant doubt in Jesus regarding who he is. The three temptations Satan offer were power, pride, and possession, in that order. All sins we may commit are also rooted in one or more of these same three basic types, and always, at the root, is the planting of doubt by him, personally, or by his minions that what we believe or know to be true is truth, or is it fantasy?

Once upon a time when "Craft" was "Art," the font size for a new post's Title was of a legible font size [ the same size as the post, itself] so it could be edited. What mastermind decided to reduce that font size to sub-normal, which is not a choice?

Forty whacks with a witch's broom, please. Then change the @!$$#$!! size!

I notice that it is unchangeable by my own discretion to the Heading 1 size, as directly above, or any other so it's up to a Mod change, I guess. I do not have 20/10 vision anymore. I used to, but no more.