Kasz216 said:
It wasn't as much reaganomics as it was vastly increased govenrment spending to take out the russians, greatly increased trade deficits and a savings and loans problem.
His tax cuts worked wonders... it increased GDP and lowered unemployment. The problem was he decided to start spending a lot more on a war vs a crumbling enemy who posed little threat anymore, there was a giant credit problem with banks and our trade deficit got out of control.... In otherwords... basically a smaller version of what's happened recently... though the savings and loan crisis only cost us like 150 billion or so.
Had Reagan cut spending when he cut taxes instead of increasing it... we'd still be the worlds largest creditor... rather then a debtor... or, would of been until this crisis anyway. |
I understand now.
I knew that one of the main goals of Reagonomics was to cut government spending where possible. So investing in a war with the USSR can't really be seen as the fault of Reagonomics, more the fault of not carrying it out properly by investing too much money in a war.
To be honest though, I haven't read enough on the subject to give a meaningful opinion.
