Hume vs. Descartes Debate

Descartes coined the phrase "I think, therefore I am." He rejected anything that was doubted and reaffirmes those ideas to establish the true knowledge. Hume states that we perceive everything through our senses and that even though, he does not reject reason it comes secondary to our senses. How can we trust our senses to tell what is true or not true, if our senses are prone to deceiving us? Our senses perceive things differently that other people's, there is no way that we trust our senses to tell us the exact truth about anything. One of Descartes best examples is the "Wax Argument." Descartes takes a piece of was and observes its characteristics: texture, shape, size, color, and smell. Then he brings the piece of wax towards a flame, the wax's characteristics change. Even though its characteristics change it is still the same piece of wax. His senses are the ones that tell him that its characteristics are different. To really understand the piece of wax, he needs to consider the nature of the wax, and for that he must put aside his senses and use his mind.
Hume states that reason is the slave of passions, passions being impressions (pain, joy, happiness). How is that possible? Humans use reason in every aspect of the world, in how they see things and in the manner in which they behave. Humans have the ability to supress the "passions" and use reason to evaluate and perceive their environment. Hume also states that we have knowledge of things that we directly experience. If that were true then what about all the knowledge that we gain from others and our past? All the knowledge that we gain from outside ourselves is gained by those people that have acquired it through their own experience. So if they have knowledge about that certain experience then why can't we believe that it is true as well? Our senses deceive us daily, but our ability to reason is what overshadows that flaw because our mind uses reason to be able to see through the deception.