highwaystar101 said:
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. |
To be honest i'm not even sure reagan cared at all. Lowering taxes on the rich pretty much always is going to raise GDP and create jobs because the rich have more money to invest. Which means they invest it and create jobs. Or hell, even put the money in a bank, which banks can loan. The real issue is "how much are other people benefiting". What kind of jobs are being created... are these people opening new stores and factories? Or just increasing the amount of lower level workers they hire.. etc. T he reagan tax cuts were huge and had to have a giant positve effect. Problem was... reagan was the first real cut and spend Republican. He's just generally given slack for it because the USSR collapsed during his presidency... some say the massive arms rate he started caused the russians to retaliate and break their economy... others say their economy was already going to collapse. I have no clue which is real honsetly. Their economy was going to crash anyway i imagine... authortiaran communism can't work on such large a level with competitors who aren't communist. How long it would of took however...








