You want facts?
Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation,
double digit interest rates and gas shortages.
Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on
Carter. You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what
you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other
influences like world economy.
Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It
doesn't deserve the term fact.
All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like
Reagan.
But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic
performance.

Fact: Ronald Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a financial boom with government
revenue substantially increasing during his 2 terms.
You can say that but where is the proof? In your words this is
interpretation cause there may have been other explanations for the
development you mention, if it was there in the first place.
Sorry, still no fact, even by your own standards...

Fact: Reagan cut federal spending as a share of the GDP almost 1% during
his 2 terms.
Fact: Reagan is the only president in the last forty years to cut
inflation-adjusted non-defense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his
first term.
Fact: Reagan cut the budget of 8 agencies out of 15 during his first term
and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second term.
You can tell me anything here. I see your declarations but I see no
proof. But I guess you expect me just to believe what you say...

Fact: Reagan brought the USSR to its feet (financially) with them trying to
compete with our Strategic Defense Initiative and a continued space program.
This was one factor in bringing out the collapse of the USSR.
Interpretation and immense speculation. Sorry, no fact, not even
close.

Fact: Reagan was one of the most popular US Presidents in history, getting
525 of 538 electoral votes and 59% of the popular votes in the 1984
election.
Does that say something about Reagan or about the american public or
about the tv show the us political process really is...?

How about 'dem apples Len?
As far as facts were remotely in sight (most of your post was
speculation, selective use of history and interpretation): where can I
find the proof, Jim?

And all done without an attack on you or an insult to you.
Well in that case, you must feel you're a better person than I am....

Now come back once you learn to play nice.
I don' take orders.

But seriously Jim. You are blowing my using the term "acting like a
boring child" out of proportion. Your roleplaying like being that much
offended ( "attack" is way too strong a word for this, "insult" is
also too strong) for gaining moral territory in our discussion is
indeed really childish....
And that is no longer a term used jokingly but now is an empirical
fact for me.

When we take a little distance we will have to conclude that we're not
going to be soulmates. You will probably keep using your "being
offended" and we'll both grab useable facts or what is presented as
facts to prove our point.
Maybe we'd better leave it at that.