Economists still argue whether Reagan’s actions were helpful or harmful to the United States economy. They question whether it was Reagan s policies that pulled the United States out of the 1982 recession, or whether it was new money being poured into the economy by the Federal reserve. Also many people believe that Reagan’s policies are having more effect on the economy today than they did during his presidency from 1980 to 1988. I feel that Reagan and his policies were extremely helpful to the economic status of our country. I feel that even though his policies produced a large deficit, his other improvements, such as increased GDP, more jobs, and pulling out of a recession, helped to make Reagan’s time as president a success.
He also wanted to deregulate state and federal government requirements and liberate business and allow capitalism to flourish making people more prosperous and enabling them to pay more taxes, decreasing federal deficit. He also wanted to strengthen the nation’s defences. It can be argues that reaganomics was not successful in the years 1981 – 89 but it depends on who you ask, the democrats would say it didn’t work where republicans would say it did work. After the Great Depression the consensus was that the government’s main target should be to maintain a low level of unemployment. But the reaganites said that the low unemployment obsession had pushed up public expenditure and led to budget deficits and stagflation and they believed in supply side economics which emphasised growth.
In 2000 revenues exceeded expenditures, however the government chose to lower taxes and increase spending; opposite of economic theory. This paid off following the 911 attacks making the anticipated recession the shortest to date. The United States deficits are funded by the selling of bonds. If buyers are unwilling to buy these bonds, the central banks buy them. Because these loans are IOUs, they can be offset by printing more money.
Upon taking office, Governor Reagan was faced with a substantial budget deficit. To combat this issue, Governor Reagan put a temporary freeze on the hiring of government workers. He also signed a substantial tax increase into law. Despite the tax increase, he was elected to another term in 1970. During this term, the governor worked with the Democratic legislature to enact welfare reform in the State of California.
Research Paper President Obama's New Deal vs. President Roosevelt's New Deal The original new deal that was proposed by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's during the great depression many columnists believe that it has been revamped into something that President Barack Obama believes can jumpstart the American economy. Since both of these men are from the Democratic Party and were voted into office by the American people under the promise that they would and could help jumpstart the economy that would lead to a decrease in unemployment. They both had a huge responsibility to the American people to hit the ground running. And although the similarities of the deals are almost to uncanny to be coincidence they each had key ideas on how to get the American people back into the workforce. I will be focusing on just a few key areas that have been struck due to the recession for President Obama and the Great Depression for President Roosevelt and how each man either fixed the problem or is attempting to.
income inequality. Sixty-one percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll think the wealthgap is larger than it’s been historically. And despite longstanding public concerns about activist government, six in 10 also say the federal government should seek to reduce that differential. The public’s concern is buttressed by a recent Congressional Budget Office estimate that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have nearly tripled their incomes since 1979, while the bottom 80 percent of earners have seen their share of the nation’s total income slightly decline. This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that 37 percent perceive the wealth gap as “much larger” than it’s been; just 5 percent think it’s smaller.
There are several parallels that lead us to believe that history may be repeating itself. Today’s U.S. economy is producing 2.2% more goods output then before the economic recession started in the late 2000’s, but with 3.8% fewer workers. This can be attributed to our modern day recession stimulating huge productivity and efficiency gains as business let mediocre employees go to save on labor costs. They have learned to do more with less. Unemployment rates were steadily on the rise just a few months ago and corporate profits are at all time highs.
Corporations could have saved the welfare of their employees but money was the only thing on their mind. “[I]t was done for short term profits and to destroy the unions. Millions of people were thrown out of work and the remaining workers were told to work twice as hard but the wages for working people remained frozen” (Capitalism: A Love Story, Prod. Michael Moore). Corporations began to obtain political power during the Reagan administration when President Reagan passed laws that accommodated corporations and their profits.
When the taxes for the corporate were cut this should have led to the corporations cutting the cost of their produces’ but this does not happen. When Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 President Reagan started to implement economic policies; and after his first term President Reagan had cut the top tax rate from 70% down to 50% and when he left the office in 1989 it was down to just 28%. The federal government revenue was cut very significantly that funding for basic programs went away. With the lack of money the country had to spend President Reagan still increased military spending to $456.5 Billion by 1987. With Reaganomics at full steam ahead the wealth and posterity did not “trickle-down” as
Wal-Mart reported profits of nearly $15 billion in 2011. At around 2 million employees, a $2 wage increase across the board would create an additional $7.8 billion in labor costs annually (assuming 40 hour work weeks). If we look at the 2011 data, this would shift the net income of Wal-Mart in half. While Wal-Mart could most certainly increase wages, it results in a significant impact So why don’t they? It is clear that customer service is not a priority, or a core competency, of Wal-Mart.