I went back and looked at my theory post and my analysis post and I realized that I might have come across a little biased. I have been, for the most part, leaning so much towards one side that I have almost neglected the other viewpoints. I would like to take some time to take a step back and look at Reaganomics in a little more depth, since I am comparing and contrasting them to Obamanomics so much.
The Reaganomics theory was based upon the belief that government interference stumped the growth of companies, and because this is true these companies could not fully reinvest in the economy. In my analysis post I made a point that Obamanomics and Reaganomics had little in common. This may be true in some aspects so I was not totally wrong, however, they do indeed have many similarities. For example, Obama is actually following the concepts of tax cuts. In fact he has actually provided tax cuts to 95% of American sin an attempt to get the economy going again. Although Reaganomics saw corporate tax cuts and personal income taxes to certain wealth classes, Reaganomics did have some bad aspects. Despite all the tax cuts Reagan saw through, the lower income families and individuals saw taxes rise, suggesting that the “little guys” were not benefiting from government programs like everyone else. It left the blue collar Americans stuck on the rocks.
I honestly am surprised about the similarities between Obamanomics and Reaganomics and am shocked that I overlooked them earlier. Perhaps Obamanomics is not quite as bad as it seems. The markets are in-fact showing improvement and the unemployment rate has ceased (at least for the time being) to climb.
No comments:
Post a Comment