I would disagree on both counts. Trump eliminated the mandate, which has not only caused serious damage but set the stage for the ultimate destruction of the entire thing in the courts. Without Trump, it would be on much stronger footing and much more affordable. As it is, we will probably lose it later this year. His base hates the ACA.

As for the harsh treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, his supporters, at least a number of them, may disagree with the worst of it, but they applaud the harsh policies and his standard rhetoric (which is used to justify his actions). They believe it has been too long in coming.

These are both definite accomplishments in the eyes of his base, and positive ones at that.

Been a while since my econ classes, but Supply Side economics basically focuses on the shifting of the supply curve rather than the demand curve. The supply curve shifting to the left is bad because it causes both higher prices (inflation) AND reduced production (lower GDP, lower employment), which is called “stagflation” and actually occurred in the 1970s. While the supply curve shifting to the right gives stable or lower prices AND increased production.

Reaganomics was the notion if you cut taxes on businesses they will invest more in R&D and more efficient production processes, which would shift the supply curve to the right.

The problem is that while businesses may use SOME of those tax cuts to invest, they may also use them to increase profits (and share holder income). By increasing share-holder income, you can increase discretionary spending which can shift the demand curve to the right as well (mitigating the effects of the supply curve shift). coupled with the fact that Reagan also cut individual taxes as well (which also contributes to shifting the demand curve), it isn’t hard to see why Reaganomics was a failed attempt at supply-side economics.

Except he hasn’t destroyed the ACA. He has tried and failed. So that isn’t an “accomplishment.”

As for the harsh treatment of immigrants, that is not something his supporters agree with. You can see this by the way they always try to deflect to the obama admin whenever the topic comes up, or try to claim it is because the Dems in congress wouldn’t give Trump the money. Because they know it makes Trump look bad.

However, they will proudly Trumpet the tax cuts, the economy and other things on that list.

I certainly make no claim to being an economics expert, only someone who lived through that period and became acquainted via informal study of what the terms refereed to. My only addition would be that I think Reaganomics was more than just tax cuts:
(1) reduce the growth of government spending

(2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital

(3) reduce regulation

(4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply

I do know that Reaganomics, trickle-down and supply side were used interchangeably in the reports I have read over the past few decades. Unfortunately, economic theory is a pretty complex, and often cryptic subject. I think one of Reagan’s faults was that he tried to make it appear to be dead simple. That appealed to many listening, but I don’t think it can adequately convey the information.

Obviously Supply Side came first, and Reaganomics drew heavily on it. As I said, the two tend to be used rather synonymously today. If they are not essentially the same, then I stand corrected.

I certainly make no claim to being an economics expert, only someone who lived through that period and became acquainted via informal study of what the terms refereed to. My only addition would be that I think Reaganomics was more than just tax cuts:
(1) reduce the growth of government spending

(2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital

(3) reduce regulation

(4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply

I do know that Reaganomics, trickle-down and supply side were used interchangeably in the reports I have read over the past few decades. Unfortunately, economic theory is a pretty complex, and often cryptic subject. I think one of Reagan’s faults was that he tried to make it appear to be dead simple. That appealed to many listening, but I don’t think it can adequately convey the information.

Obviously Supply Side came first, and Reaganomics drew heavily on it. As I said, the two tend to be used rather synonymously today. If they are not essentially the same, then I stand corrected.