Reaganomics, or trickle down economic theory is quite possibly the worst way to try and induce economic growth. Wealthy people spend less of their money on dureable goods and services which are the backbone of increasing the economy. Increasing the minimum wage would create a huge boost in the economy. Middle and lower class economic groups spend nearly every penny they make and they constitute about 99% of the population. Do the math, the more money spent in an economy the bigger it gets. Reagan did wonders for nations like Poland and other eastern block countries but his economic policies were crap.
2006-09-18 11:52:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by kmankman4321 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's right Joe, but remember, while Bill didn't do anything, Al Gore sure did! He invented the Internet, remember?
Look, I'm only 22, and I haven't done too much homework on "Reaganomics", but the facts are this. Either way, A PRESIDENT CAN DO NOTHING!!!!!! This is not a dictatorship! It's the paid off member of the senate and the house that make the decisions, good or bad.
If we were to eliminate the social security system, welfare, government funded schools, and other socialist programs that we cling so dear do, WE WOULD BE IN FOR A DISASTER!! One which would last at least a couple administrations or longer. But I'm sure who ever came in office down the road just as...."THE PEOPLE" .... were starting to adjust and fix things for themselves, the president who was in office at the time would get the all the credit according to your line of reasoning. Now, if that were an evil, Nazi, conservative, wouldn't YOU then have to bow to the fact that, he or she fixed the problem? ......
answer that one
2006-09-18 12:05:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by riviera4551971 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton inherited an outstanding economic gadget from Reagan. He left place of work with the commercial gadget declining. what's that you say? it truly is Bush's fault? ok, because you say it truly is it truly is not any longer available for Obama to make the commercial gadget worse in a month or 2, then it truly is not any longer available for Bush to have brought with reference to the recession merely weeks into his presidency.
2016-11-27 23:19:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.
2006-09-19 23:14:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by MorgantonNC 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Reagonomics blew. Reagan was an alzheimers ridden old bag who never should have been President.My dog could have been a better president than reagan.I will never understand why conservatives hold him up as a shining example of a good president.Then they like Bush so maybe they look drooling on themselves retarded presidents who piss themselves
2006-09-18 11:52:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
A lot of times, things that Presidents do, are not in fruition until a few years after they are enacted, so there is some "trickle down" or delay effect on a lot of economic related issues.
2006-09-18 11:51:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Life after 45 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
An economic change like Reagan's takes time. And what else did Clinton inherit, an Internet boom and post-war growth.
2006-09-18 11:48:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by fat_american 2
·
4⤊
1⤋
The neo-cons will say anything in hopes that people have short memories. One of Clintons jingles in 1992 was"it;s the economy stupid". . If the economy was good he would not have that slogan.
2006-09-18 11:57:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by jimbo 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
It is very simple to see that bush sr or bush jr has no business being in office. Why the good economy missed both bushes and most republicans when in office is because they are in it for their own gain and not to help the country.
2006-09-18 11:48:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Don K 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
That depends on if by "cons" you mean conservatives or people who feel Clinton's economy was bad. Either way, it is easier to blame someone who is no longer alive to speak for themselves.
2006-09-18 11:48:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋