what was reaganomics?
613891
Economics during the Ronald Reagan administration.
554682
I think there was more of a sense of optimism and greed. To me the 90's were more of a time of adventure and extreme stuff. The 80's were all about me and how I can improve myself.
720813
Ronald Reagan.  Unlike Clinton, he did not have 5 embassies blown up under his watch, murder American citizens in WACO and Ruby Ridge, did not have a destroyer nearly destroyed, did not have the trade center have a bomb detonaed, did not have the largest terrorist attack before 9/11 (oklahoma city), or sell nuclear missle technology to China.  Both had their scandales, with Reagan's having to do directly with the seperation of powers OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, VIA IRAN-CONTRA, whereas the scandal of Clinton invloved perjury in a court of law.  Though I do believe that Clinton, who was impeached, should have been convicted for perjury, I also believe that if he had demanded executive privalege, he should have been immune from testifying in that criminal proceeding.  \n\nReagan accomplished more internationally and nationally than Clinton.  Comparing the two, Reagan inheritated a worse economy than Clinton, and created a more profitable economy than Clinton.  Reagan also had to contend with a rival superpower in the Soviets, whereas Clinton did not.  Reagan dealt with the Imans successfully, as well as Libya and other tyrants.  Clinton's great success was Milosevich.  Comparring the defeat of Milo versus the USSr, Reagan accomplished more.\n\nThe economy of Reagan gave birth to the tertiary economy of the 90's, allowing the USA to leave behind the trappings of a primary and secondary economy.  Reagan grew the private sector, Clinton contained it.  In terms of inspiration, Reagan was greater.\n\nIn regard to popularity, Reagan stomped his opposition in both the electoral and popular votes.  Clinton never won more than 50% of the popular vote in either of his presidentail elections.  The presence of a 3rd party conservative candidate insured a split conservative vote, allowing an easy electoral win for Clinton.\n\nWhen Reagan left office, his party was stronger in the quantities of offices held in state and federal governments.  Reagan appointed morejustices, and thus exerted a greater influence on the judicial future of the nation.  When Clinton left office, Republicans held more governorships, state legislatures, as well as the senate and the house of representative.  In terms of delivering power to their party, Clinton was a total failure and Reagan a semi-success.\n\nAs those two weigh against each other, Reagan wins.  The other presidents, Bush I and Bush II, Ford, Nixon, and Carter, all rank behind these two.\n\nReagan\nClinton\nBush I\nBush II\nFord\nNixon\nCarter\n\nSpell check failed me, so please excuse the spelling errors.
423547
sorry i don't know off the top of my head, but you could find out looking at the "economist" magazine, at www.economist.com
100309
Regan.  Ended the Cold War, Revitalized us conservatives.
127127
He was president when the great depression started, I remember my dad talking about it and said he was at least partally to blame by his fiscal policys. Hey Bush take a lesson here supply side economics does not work, never has never will.
38897
The FDR revolution.  Introduced Marxism into American Government. via welfare, graduated tax, confiscation of private gold reserves
487958
well, sorry, but Ronald Reagan is involved in my answer.  The end of the Cold War was a pretty major one.
666986
one word..money. Gorbachev was a centrist thinker who realized that communism was failing and trying to keep up with the US in the arms race was bankrupting the soviet economy. the Reagan government was very strong in its resolve against communism and the soviet empire as well. our strong economy could handle an arms race escalation, Gorbachev knew that the soviet economy could not. unfortunately for him, his perestroika reforms eventually led to his own demise, as the new openness it created bore fruit in the collapse of the communist Eastern bloc countries in the late 80's early 90's.
906922
In 1981, Reagan cut welfare, and ther social spending benefits by about 20%...and the nation went into recession, and crime went up.\n\nSo if welfare was cut, crime would go up.....because it's  happened before.
779344
This is indeed a "booming economy".  I have heard the people of Haliburton say it a number of times.  Seriously, I am tired of people trying force feed us that the economy is doing so great.  It is not.  There are a number of problems with it.  Here are just a few.\n\n\n a one trillion dollar war\nout of control spending in government\nrecord numbers of foreclosures\ncollege tuition and health care costs doubling\n20% of Americans owning 80% of the stock\nrecord deficits in spending\nnational debt doubling\ntrade deficit every year for the past 30 years\nmillions more in poverty every year\nhalf a trillion dollars a year spent on interest this year on \nnational debt. yes, that was just the interest.\n"real income" down each of the last five years\npersonal savings at an all time low\n\n This doesn't sound like America.  Unfortunately it is.
374708
Reagan because the Reagan years saw a restoration of prosperity, and the goal of peace through strength seemed to be within grasp.
877440
Some would say that it wasn't economic policy. The problem was one of overproduction combined with the inflated values of stocks. \n\nThe policies of Hoover and Roosevelt differed little. FDRs was more of a PR campaign. For all Roosevelt did, his policies affected little change in the economy. \n\nPerhaps it can be said the the use and issuance of credit was a leading economic factor.
799880
Is this a trick Q?  Following the stagflation that occured in the late 1970's (as a resuly of the Keynsian social democratic principles that characterised post-war politics) Thatcher and the conservatives followed liberalist political ideology as advocated by the likes of Hayek.. which included believing in private ownership and individual responsibility etc etc\n\nSo the effect Thatcher had on privatisation was to privatise many utilities/industries such as BT, BR, Steel etc  Some commentators argue that this increased efficiency and productivity..it certainly led to increased flexibility in the work place which for many workers may not be such a great phenomenon in the same way that trade union strangle holds were bad for business before.. (pendulum gone too far?) \n\nPossibly, but now that the major parties have resolved the big issues (Tories accepting some degree of social help needed/NHS to stay and Labour seeing that business must be competitive/privatisation has a place) both parties are fighting over middle ground so it can be said with a large degree of certainty that public ownership is likely to remain something that happened in the past.
1081591
Dems.  And we wonder why there were such deficits in the '80s.
521642
Did the Reagan economic approach of supply-side economics work?  The answer is yes and no.  Certainly cutting taxes on those who invest in the economy worked in that it increased tax revenues to the federal government worked, just as it did during President Kennedy’s administration and in the early years of the income tax system and when it was tried during the 1860s.  However, to fully work the federal government must also cut spending and in that the Congress failed. \n\nThis is really a debate as to whether the economy should be driven by federal investment or by private investment.  Those who want a centrally drive economy (that is driven by general government direction and goals) want high taxes.  Those who want the economy driven by dispersed private investment want low taxes.  \n\nThe element that is missed by many in this debate is that businesses do not really pay income taxes, rather they are accrued by the business and passed on through product/service pricing.  Ultimately they are paid by the consumer.  High taxes make the politicians feel good because they can go to the voter and say look what I have done for you, but they fail to say that such taxes are highly regressive on the poorest members of the society. \n\nIf the politicians really want to help the poor (making it so that they can more likely control their own economic destiny) all  income taxes should be done away with.  On business this would eliminate a significant portion of the product service cost (to the business) and competition would force the prices down.  For example, some have estimated that a new car price is comprised of 40% accumulated income taxes.\n\nRemoving the personal income tax would immediately increase personal purchasing power.  Both of these have the impact of increasing the economic growth providing new created value and increasing demand through newly created jobs.\n\nOf course the federal government would have to dramatically reduce spending, but this can easily be reached by the federal government adhering to the limits of the Constitution and no longer spending for extra-constitutional functions.  If there was a need for additional monies for the federal government (the federal government failed to cut its spending, the federal government could be run by a very modest consumption tax.
374974
I like Reagan too.  He had the balls to stand up to the Soviets, which eventually led to the end of the Cold War and the downfall of the Soviet Union.