Reagan Recovery

Ronald Reagan, President of the United States from 1981 through 1989, created economic policies throughout his presidency that aimed to pull the United States out of a recession. His policies, called Reaganomics, reduced government spending and reduced tax rates in order to foster economic growth. Reagan also appointed many conservative judges to the Supreme Court and federal courts in order to shift ideologies to the right. Because of this, Reagan was both underrated and overrated as a president.

During the last decade of the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan presented a battery of economic reforms influenced by supply-side economics. The reforms of 1981 and 1986 lowered the tax rate for individuals and corporates, introduced deregulations and simplified taxation. The belief in the Laffer curve, which claims that deregulation and lower marginal taxes will increase government revenue and economic growth, justified the reforms in addition to neoliberal ideas. Did Reaganomics, the Reagan application of free market capitalism, encourage social mobility and prosperity for all citizens, or did it let the wealthy retain and develop their economic status

Reagan then wanted to make large tax cuts, approximately 25%. Reagan was very well liked and his charm on TV and support from the “boll weevils” had help pass this bill as well. The plan called for "supply-side economics,” but more commonly due to the time of Reagan’s presidency and ideals of Reagan they were nicknamed “Reaganomics.” Which are policies that supported businesses. Such as lower taxes and less government intrusion. These “Supply-side finances” would help to boost investment, establishment, employment, and ultimately through its growth, it would reduce the federal

Reagan was known for his “Reaganomics”, his policies based on supply-side economics or trickle-down theory. This was his belief on how to fix the nation’s economic disasters. Reaganomics had the idea that if there was a cut in taxes, particularly corporation taxes, economic development would increase. It would kindle job and economic growth by reducing domestic program spending by the government, the shrinking of individual investment and business investment taxes, decreasing the number of regulations on businesses, and maintaining slower economic money growth.

President Reagan relied on the partisan pathway to successfully enact his economic recovery package. He won the election by campaigning on the declining state of the United States economy and the exponential size of the Federal government (Scott & Vogel, 1996, p. 1). By running on these issues, he made this a partisan platform and thus his election victory was viewed as a mandate from the people to implement the policies that he championed during his campaign. As the Republican Party Leader, he used the power of his office to utilize resources to develop a strong legislative process and package (Conlan & Posner, 2014)). He had to ensure that he had the support from within and outside the House (Scott & Vogel, 1996, p. 2). Additionally, he was aware that the Republican Party only controlled one chamber of Congress (the Senate). He needed to garner support of congressional leaders from both the Republican and Democratic parties to enact his legislation into law (Scott & Vogel, 1996, p. 2). While he had bipartisan support on the need to cut government spending and better manage the limit the growth of the federal government; there was resistance on the method to go about making these changes. Since he knew he was going to face resistance from a Democratic House, President Reagan lobbied continually with opponents in exchange for support (Scott & Vogel, 1996, p. 9).

Ronald Reagan’s presidency was coined as the “Teflon presidency” referring to how many criticisms were made about his administration’s policies that did not affect his approval ratings. Reagan was also stated to have the skill as a media communicator which enforced his appeal aiding to the success of his administration. In his time in office, Reagan supported supply-side economics through policies, some of which reduced taxes to encourage business expansion. Through reducing taxes this theory was stated to then “lead to a larger supply of goods to help stimulate the system as a whole…” (Nash 918). Even though all taxpayers ended up receiving tax relief, it was skewed- the rich were said to have gained more than those of lower incomes (Nash

In the United States around 82.2% of custodial parents are mothers; 30.4% of them and their children lived in poverty in the year 2009 (Wolf, 2017). The gender gap in the workplace can keep a single mother from being able to fully get out of poverty. A single mother earns less than a single father does. In the year 2015 it was noted that single mothers earned 70.7% of the income single fathers had earned (Industry Week Staff, 2017). It is harder for a single mother, who may have never been married to begin with, to invest in schooling when she is trying to cover the costs of her children and

The Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Act created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program “to provide income support poor families with children” (Gilbert &Terrell, p.75). The intended purpose of the TANF’s initiative is to end Welfare and to cut down on social spending programs. The impact of TANF has promoted a new way of receiving public assistance and places the emphasis on self- sufficiency through employment. It also pushes the main idea of being married in efforts to decrease out of wedlock births. The primary social problem that this act attempts to address is poverty. Its focus points are getting people to obtain employment with the hopes that once employment is obtained it will reduce the amount of families in poverty.

Families are not being equally affected by the economic changes in America. “Rates of marriage also are changing according to class; middle-class people are more likely to marry and remarry than working-class people, who are more likely to remain single or cohabitate” (Marriage Wanes, 1999). When looking at the information presented in Marriage Wanes it shows that lower income individuals are less likely to marry. Though Money Income in the United States (2001) shows that all incomes are affected by a decline in the economy; racial groups; Blacks, and Asians are impacted the most by a higher decline of average median wages. Families in these groups will be the most impacted by the economic

Throughout history, poverty has always been one of the biggest issues in the United States with the major impacts that it has brought into the economy and standard way of living. Although poverty may be overshadowed by such recent event such as the raise in minimum wages in California, it is still something that society should still be concern about because it can only get worse from here by the way it is progressing in the economy if actions are not being met. Furthermore, currently major factors of poverty are portrayed as the anti-poverty programs that are governmentally funded such as welfare, a program that aid families who

Not only is family structure changing across the United States, but in certain states it is much higher. Louisiana has the highest percentage of single-mother led families followed by Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia leaving Ohio at eleventh with the most single-mother families (.....). Single-parent families are increasingly common in today’s society. Since more than a decade ago, children are living with a single parent as well as the increase in kids living with a single father. The number of single father families has increased twenty-two percent in just ten years, while the number of married couples raising children has steadily declined through the years. "The American family has been changing for a long time," said Anastasia Snyder, an Ohio State University professor who studies family structure. "This is a trend, and I just don't see it turning around" (.....). As of 2000, the number of married couples with children led the statistics in Ohio with a whopping seventy-one percent but by 2010, the number had a dramatic decrease to just sixty-five percent. Because of the increase in single-parent families, the number of households in Ohio has increased by 3 percent to 4.6 million while the overall population only grew 1.6 percent to 11.5 million residents (.....). Divorce most likely plays a role on these numbers as well but is mostly because of single-parent

For instance, Polakow (1993) pointed out that “only 51 percent of single mothers were awarded child support payments, and of that group only 26 percent actually received their full award” (p.59). Having insecure income and the absence of child support are known as the factors why single mother live under poverty and stressful lives. “Without financial aid, single mother students — a total of about 2 million — have little or no means to contribute financially to their educational expenses” (D, 2017, n.p). In addition, some of single mother can’t qualify for the assistance programs because their income has a little bit over limit. Therefore, most of solo mother force themselves to stay home or reduce their working hours to meet the requirement for the application of public assistance. To sum up, being single mothers are very stressful and challenges because most of them live under poverty

This has been statistically proven by credited researchers and theorists through their published reports, data and studies. The 1999 the PSE survey found that single parent families were well over twice as likely than all other households to live in poverty, with two out of three single parents living in poverty (Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000). There are many reasons as to why single- parent families are the most likely to suffer from poverty. Single parents, both working and non-working, are among the heaviest losers from the Coalition government’s tax and benefits changes. This often causes single parent households to live on or just above/below the poverty line. While some of those single parents that are in work will gain from the raising of the tax threshold, most benefits for families are being frozen, cut or withdrawn. Single parents have been effected by new laws and legislations that have, more often than not, cut financial aid and support rather than increasing

First lets identify the reason why there is such a numerous amount of people in poverty. Recorded data demonstrates that “15.1 percent— just over 46 million Americans— were officially in poverty in 2010 [, which ]... is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007”(State of Working America). Also “The average unemployment rate rose from 4.6 percent in 2007 to 9.3 percent in 2009 and 9.6 percent in 2010” (TRISI, SHERMAN AND BROADDUS). What this data clearly represents is an increase of poverty rate in

Single parent families, especially those headed by a female, differ greatly from married couple families in their characteristics. Single parent families are more likely to be poor, receive welfare, and contain young children. In 1990 female-headed households had a poverty rate of 33.4 percent while poverty rates for married couple and male-headed households were 5.7 and 12.0, respectively. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991a). As reflected by their higher poverty rate, the earnings power of women heading households is far less than that of married couples or male only