no
Funding for Social programs. Most "liberals" would be in favor of less defense spending and higher corporate taxes.
Public funding is funding that is provided by the government. Many social programs designed to help people receive public funding.
No-this would be unconstitutional. There is some federal funding for school programs and for social services programs, however.
They increased defense spending and lowered taxes.
Some economists and critics have blamed the widening gap between the rich and the poor on Reaganomics. His tax cuts and other policies gave additional money to the rich. He cut social programs, increasing the depth of poverty and promoted "Trickle Down Economics".
Reaganomics. Illegal drugs.
The three goals of Reaganomics were to lower taxes, higher defense spending, and curtailed spending for social surfaces. Reagan's plan to help the economy.
One particular concern of countries with aging populations is the strain on their healthcare and social security systems. As the elderly population grows, there is an increased demand for healthcare services and pensions, which can put a financial burden on the working-age population. Additionally, there may be a shrinking workforce to support the economy and contribute to pension and healthcare funding.
Budget cutz in social programz
a decrease in funding for social welfare programs at the federal level. This led to a shift of responsibility for these programs to the states, which received block grants with less restrictive guidelines. However, this also resulted in a reduction in overall funding for social welfare and a lack of consistency in services across different states.
Mandatory funding is set by laws and must be spent on specific programs, like Social Security. Discretionary funding is decided by Congress each year and can be adjusted. Mandatory funding limits flexibility in budgeting, while discretionary funding allows for more control over spending priorities.
These programs have worked very well in providing security to senior citizens. However, due to increased life span and expansion of eligibility, neither program is actuarially sound and, lacking changes in eligibility and/or funding, both will eventually run out of money.