Hi Rtumer76,
You certainly have a lot of material here … and some of it is valid.
Regan was not successful - remember the Late Tip ONeal tell Regan that Regan’s budget was dead on arrival? Much of what we attribute to any President (pro or con) has little to do with that particular man - rather it what actually gets through the Congress. There are exceptions, of course, FDR is cassic for his 100 days … which was more smoke and mirrors but, it was a psychological stimulus and that is what the country needed - and the real credit goes to Roosevelt moreso thatn the Congress. Clinton was pounding on the podium about how he was going to get the health care bill he had decided he would get (and with a Democratic Congress no less) or he would veto any poor substitute. He got nothing. It would be odd not to credit the Republicans in their Contract with America concerning welfare reform - but, yes, Clinton did sign it, so that and a balanced budget with a surplus that we can look back on: Here is an interesting link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
It really is not as simplistic as you are presenting… and that is a major issue. The solutions are not going to be simplistic, either. Income re-distribution looks good to those on the receiving end … and not so good on those who are having their property taken. But, where is there a model where such a program would work - Marx tried and tried to get the industrial English to accept this - but, it failed to gather hardly any traction. The agricultural Russians tried to adopt it … as did China, Cuba and N. Korea. Look at the results.
Scraming about the inustices between the classes (‘rich getting richer…’) is really hollow because we all want at least sufficient wealth to enjoy leisure. The hollowness comes in when you look at the so-called ‘poor getting poorer’. Since 1945 those considered poor have enjoyed yearly increases in their standard of living - the US economy (people investing in goods and services) skyrocketed. When you compare things like food, automobiles, housing, health care - things are much better then they were after WW II. The poor have NOT gotten poorer.
For the past 5 years we have had a significant economic depression. But, unlike the Great Depression - we do not see shut down factories becuase no one is buying items (many are shut down because of US laws and companies moving to other countries) or bread lines, or ‘Hoovervilles’. While anyone can come up with a ‘my Aunt Emma’ type example - what I am saying is true for the majority in the country.
Seriously, if you want to do something significant for the economy … offer to take a rich man to lunch! Over lunch, find out what drives him to do what he does and to outperform his competors. Sure you may find greed - but, I guarantee it does not stop there. You will find genuine interest and determination and enthusiasm for what he does - and he looks to his employees as not so many ants to step on - but, as valuable assets to accomplish his mission. They may see him as a paycheck - but, the truly motivated employee will also see the boss’ dream as their dream, too.
You know, no one really understands this economy … and they really did not understand it in 1776, either. There are a lot of aspects the Blind Men and the Elephant poem by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) hits the nail on the head … a lot of us have ideas about what makes it work - but, none of guys have really identified an elephant.
God bless
The stats you are talking about do not exist. Regan was NOT successful. He created the first trillion dollar deficit then ran it up multi trillions. Bush1 added more more to it. The Clinton administration balanced the budget. The fact they had a republican house 1 year of 2 balanced terms means nothing. They passed the Clinton plan. It’s just more of holding on to the lie of a theory that NEVER actually worked. It;s a farce, a boondoggle. Trikledown or “Reganomics” NEVER worked, not even one year. I figure it must be more comfortable for people to believe that lie than than to admit you could possibly be wrong about making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I didn’t think I called any one a name, I certainly didn’t mean to and I apologize if anyone took in that way. I wasn’t trying to disrespect anyone’s opinion, just state my opinion as clearly as possib;e. So I want to apoligize also if anyone is offended by any expression I am making however my opinion I don’t believe can be found offensive. Just unpopular.
Without a doubt she is (or, at least was, serving as the bad example for spoiled rich kids - of whatever age!) a classic example. But, I think it would be more challenging if you were to address Conrad Hilton - the driving force who was significant in building the Hilton Hotel chain … with Paris only inheriting her grandfather’s and father’s wealth (without their brains).