2007-03-25 17:46:03 · 18 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Shrink (below) Yes dear. Sweet dreams to you too. Thanks.
2007-03-25 17:57:17 · update #1
Poor ol' Ronnie Reagan
His brain was getting old
He met with his "economists"
And did what he was told
"If we do it this way" he said
"It will 'trickle down', you see."
But the trouble was
It never trickled down to me!
2007-03-25 18:30:00 · answer #1 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Did you know that Bush Sr. called Reagan's economic proposals "Voodoo Economics" when he ran against Reagan? No it didn't trickle down. I believe in trickle up.
The best way that I can answer your question is to tell you what Ben Stern told everyone. 130,000 people control 80% of the wealth. 20% is left for the remaining 250,000,000 of us.
It might be trickling, but it sure isn't flowing.
2007-03-25 17:57:14 · answer #2 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pyramids are nevertheless status because of the fact the backside is powerful and extensive. it rather is basic arithmetic, greater people who paintings, creates greater funds spent, creates the desire for greater companies, which places greater people to paintings. etc. wager what, the prosperous nevertheless get richer. Republicans say, "strengthen the backside", yet that doesn't notice to jobs. Edit to the fool above me; your pulling numbers out your a$$ Clinton gained 20.3 or 21.3 million jobs, not 11. i ask your self why you left off Bush's a million million in 8 years. Hmmm?
2016-10-19 22:39:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. When Reagan went into office, individual tax rates were well over 50% for people in the higher tax brackets. His tax policies, along with Newt Gingrich's Contract with America (that Clinton signed into law) made for explosive job growth in the 1990's.
2007-03-25 18:03:18 · answer #4 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm still waiting!!!..... LOL...... It only trickled in his pocket by selling weapons to Arabs that has caused the largest American deficit ever. It could be around 3012 that Reagan's trickle theory is paid for.
2007-03-26 04:11:44 · answer #5 · answered by leonard bruce 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagan's economic policy was aimed at the top of the tax bracket. No surprise, really.
If you mean that the rich were able to hire cheap labor to care for their landscaping and wash their cars, I guess you could call that trickle down...
2007-03-25 17:58:05 · answer #6 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you're referring to tax cuts, I'll tell you tax cuts are always good. It's always better to have more money in your pocket. It's not the government's money, it's yours. If you feel compelled to give more to the government, by all means do so, but I don't want to. The federal government already has a $3,000,000,000,000 budget and as far as I'm concerned that is too much of our money.
2007-03-25 18:27:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Just look at all the manufacturing jobs that have disappeared over the years, only to be replaced by McJobs.
It wasn't Reagan's theory that failed (it was, in fact, a sound theory). It was the greed of the American consumer who went cheap on itself. Had he instituted stiff tariffs, we'd be FAR better off.
2007-03-25 17:53:54 · answer #8 · answered by free_eagle716 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It did exactly what it was suppose to do. Reagan gave money to the top of the economic chain, and that's all it was suppose to do.
So to answer your question, no, it never trickle down.
2007-03-25 17:55:02 · answer #9 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Don't know! However I do recall a recession under his presidency. To help balance out the budget he did something republicans aren't known to do. He cut back on MILITARY SPENDING!! Imagine that! Biggest Military cut in spending by a republican president of my memory service me correct!
2007-03-25 18:06:22 · answer #10 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋