Wrong on pretty much everything there.

- The prosperity of the Clinton administration was well underway long before the internet boom. He was the only president since Johnson to make it through his term recession-free.

- No one doubted the economy would continue to improve under Reagan, as the recession of 1980 had ended 6 months before. The economy was never in a "tailspin" under Carter -- The Dow actually did quite well -- The OPEC oil embargo threw the economy into a spell for a bit, but it had recovered.

- You completely forgot about the recession of 1981-82.

- What the economics experts really WERE saying was the Reagan economic plan during the high-flying mid 80s was "a textbook case on how to CAUSE a recession" -- which was exactly what it did do -- You'll recall the day in 1987 when the Dow lost 25% in one day -- erasing nearly all the gains under Reagan.

-The equivalent of the "internet boom" that happened during Reagan's time was the women's movement --- at the start of his term, most women were housewives; by the end, most were working outside the home. This led to essentially a "fire sale" on workers, and labor costs (salaries) dropped -- hence the boom. That's also why in the 70's family could get by on one income, but by the 90's, most needed two.

-There is no rational way to argue the tickle-down WILL work. It requires rich people hiring workers they have no business need for, out of charity. It just won't happen. (You also show how little you understand about economics -- your "rational" explaination of Supply-side economics, is actually describing Demand-side economics -- except you are limiting it to a tiny percentage of the population. Use the same explaination, but with everyone in the country buying things, and you get a much better economy)

If you want to read an intelligent, detailed accounting of by experts (Forbes) rather than the loony bin stuff that is getting posted here read the following article which compares Reaganomics with Obamanomics. It also gives a correct accounting of the economy preceeding Reagan's election. Unfortunately it was written in 2011 so it doesn't include the incredible devastation that Obamanomics has had on our economy and our country and its citizens since that time.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

If you want to read an intelligent, detailed accounting of by experts (Forbes) rather than the loony bin stuff that is getting posted here read the following article which compares Reaganomics with Obamanomics. It also gives a correct accounting of the economy preceeding Reagan's election. Unfortunately it was written in 2011 so it doesn't include the incredible devastation that Obamanomics has had on our economy and our country and its citizens since that time.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

As if a billionaire founded GM and the other big corps. NO! Big corps like that started as garage shops like Apple did. " Bob and Mary Everybody " bought the products, causing the industry to grow. When a car is sold to someone like "Bob and Mary Everybody" the money goes to the car dealer, he pays his employees, orders more cars. The car manufacture fills the orders by buying parts, machines, paint, tires, upholstery and other stuff. All of the employees get a paycheck from all of those suppliers because there are millions of "Bob and Mary Everybodys" buying cars. Those thousands of workers at the car plant and the parts plants repeat the actions, they are like "Bob and Mary Everybody." This is known as the "Multiplier Effect." Those thousands of families are what drives the economy. The GM boss did not just snap his fingers and billions of dollars appeared along with dozens of factories. He started small and the common American grew his business. That's why a high schooler could explain it to you, it's really quite simple.

Reagan's Trickle Down proved it. All the money has trickled up! The Billionaires buy stocks and send it offshore to avoid taxes. It is not reinvested in the economy, by and large. Reagan specifically said he wanted asset based income, not earned income. It was all about the 1% and not about growing the economy. If Supply Side is so good, why aren't the Universities teaching it? They teach free enterprise Keynesian economy because that's how a free enterprise works.