Bidenomics vs Reaganomics

   In an earlier presidency, "trickle down economics" was the term used by Ronald Reagan to describe his plan for national wealth.
   Cut taxes for the rich, and eventually, over time, after a while (we don't know how long), the benefits will trickle down to lower income groups and everyone will benefit in the long run.
   How long that might be is anyone's guess. As economist Maynard Keynes put it, "In the long run, we are all dead."
   But if the wealthy put their savings into bank accounts, do the poor benefit? The Reaganomic theory was yes, they would. Eventually.
   Not directly, but over time, and in the long run.
   Meanwhile, the rich would benefit from interest rates paid on their funds, banks would benefit by making more loans, borrowers would benefit from available funds at reasonable interest rates, and the poor and the economic middle income folk would benefit from lower food prices.
   Eventually.
   Perhaps.
   Over time.
   If they have jobs and paychecks.
   And if food prices remain steady and don't rise to absorb the available money.
   
   On the other hand, Bidenomics says government should cut taxes now for middle and lower income groups so they will benefit immediately, rather than having to wait for benefits to trickle down to their level.
   Also, the plan says to cut taxes now for employers, so they will hire more workers so they will be able to pay their rent and buy food.
   So the question becomes, who will benefit in the short term -- call it the next few weeks -- compared to those who will benefit in the long term -- call that next year's tax return.
   You decide who gets your vote.