Who contributes more to the economy? The "Haves" or the "Have-Nots. " This one simple question is the central concern of American domestic policy, and politicians have struggled with it since the birth of the Roman Empire. There is still no definite answer to it and everyday more factors come into the question. But if you were to look at the trends in the American economy you would see that generally liberal "Have Not" economics seem to do better. For example take two decades whose economics differed greatly; the '30's and the '80's The 1930's were a time of change in America.
The economy shifted to accommodate the "Have Nots" rather then the "Haves. " The running theme of the 30's was Government intervention. A welcome change from Hoover's rugged individualism policies of the 20's. In the 30's FDR created his New Deal, an economic ideal which created several government programs to help the poor. These programs included Welfare, Social Security, and the FDIC among others. Welfare was intended to be a small source of income for the poor during the depression and to get more money circulating in the economy.
Social Security was a way to insure money for the common people of the U. S. , which would hopefully stimulate the economy and help to end the depression. But stopping the depression wasn't the only goal of the New Deal, FDR also wanted to prevent another depression from occurring, so he created the FDIC. The purpose of the FDIC was to help bail out the banks if they ever needed to file for bankruptcy, which was one of the causes of the depression. Another thing that the New Deal helped bring about was the labor unions.
Labor unions allowed workers to join together on issues thus giving them some power in business decisions. These liberal ideals and policies helped to bail America out of one of the worst times in its history, which coincidentally was caused by the ideals, and policies of the conservative side of the government. The 80's are an example of these conservative policies. The 80's were run by the greedy upper class who were happy to learn that in the time of an economic recession they would be receiving tax cuts while the middle class was disappearing.The philosophy behind the rich receiving tax cuts was something called trickle down economics or Reaganomics.
Trickle down economics stated that if the rich business owners got more money then they would expand their businesses thus creating more jobs, which would eventually funnel the money down to the poor. Too bad that business owners are greedy and kept the money to get bigger houses in the Hamptons while the middle class went down the tubes.Another part of Trickle down economics was deregulation, which polluted the earth, and lessened the quality of working conditions to give the rich more money. And if Reagan didn't do enough to help the rich he also tried to dissolve the labor unions because he thought they had too much power. This led to hundreds of pilots being fired because they went on strike in the 80's. All these programs led to a huge national debt which even after a decade of liberal politics is still gigantic.
The changes made in the 1930's and 1980's still effect us today. We still have welfare and the national debt is still huge, but since Clinton was a democrat our economy is much better off as we leave the 1990's behind. He tried to pay off the debt and help the lower class and our economy was never better, so my thesis is just further proved by our prosperity in the 90's. All I can really say is that the lower class rules the economy because they are the majority, that's why our government is for the people by the people.
