I remeber learning in high school about reaganomics and his big cuts on taxes, especially for the wealthiest. Republicans adore him and most (such as hannity, just heard him say this on his show) say it created thousands of jobs, led to actually having more money to spend and all that. Democrats hate him and say he led to massive debt and the future bankruptcy of social security. In a neutral, non party-affiliated point of view, an economic pov perhaps, were reaganomics postive or negative for the US economy? What long term and short term consequences did they have?
The purpose of the Reagan Tax Cuts was three fold. The first was to help to the US leave a deep recession that struck the US economy in the early 1980s. The 1981 tax cuts were made in the context of 11% unemployment. After the passage of the tax cuts, you saw a massive decline in unemployment. However, most (but not all) mainstream economists would argue that the job creation of the 1980s has more to do with monetary policy than the tax cuts. In general, Economists are very wary of talking about job creation, because most models assume perfect employment and it is very difficult to know what job creation means.
A second assertion is that the Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves due to the Laffer Effect. That statement is largely false. The idea of the Laffer Curve is not uncontroversial. Make the tax rate 100%, and you will collect very little in revenue. However, the best evidence suggests that taxes at the time were not so high for the Laffer Effect to be relevant. The best evidence suggests that the 1981 tax cuts cost about $400 billion, but the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral as they also raised some taxes.
The third purpose was to simplify the tax code. In general, taxes should not reward some activities or punish others. They should be neutral to the overall structure of incentives. The pre-1981 tax code was filled with loopholes and ways to shield certain types of income from taxes. While the Reagan tax cuts had eye popping changes to the official tax rates, closing the loopholes the wealthy used, meant that the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy went down, but not by as much as some media would report. For example, Donald Trump is said to have been furious about the taxes because it removed a lot of the tax shelters he used, and he actually had to start paying income taxes. This element of the Reagan tax cuts is generally seen as positive.
I unfortunately do not have time to provide sources, but I would be happy to look for them tomorrow when I will not be at work. Also, I should put my own biases forward, which are generally center-left so that might be influencing my answer. I have also simplified a lot of concepts, so I'd be happy to get into more detail about a particular point or concept.
I'd recommend asking on maybe askEconomics? I'd consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the theory and empirics of taxing the income of high income people and happy to give a detailed answer, but I feel that this probably not the best place to answer the question.