Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Trickle-down theory never filled promise
Sunday, May 10, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
In Thursday’s Las Vegas Sun, Don Ellis of Henderson finished his letter to the editor by asking Americans who elected President Barack Obama and support his policies to stand up against the constant negative rhetoric so our new America can take hold and solve this economic disaster. I might add that this disaster was left to this president by the previous Republican administration!
I am one of those Americans and want to add my voice to his. One fact that few people know about the Reagan trickle-down economics theory is that the wealth did not trickle down very far.
Only the very top-level earners in this country became extremely more wealthy. The average CEO earned about 40 times more than the average worker in 1980. Most recent statistics put average CEO pay at about 400 times that of the average worker today. That is, average American workers who still have jobs.
What has happened with “trickle-down economics” for the average worker is massive job losses. Now, a form of “trickle up” is happening and those very CEOs are losing their jobs over their poor and greedy leadership.
It’s time to stop the massive tax breaks to the super wealthy and big business that have never “trickled down” to the average worker. That’s what President Obama’s economic policies will stop.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- New York mayor has the right idea
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Thanks from all of the facts of the Reagan era
Does anyone really care about how much the CEO makes. I don't. I don't care how much the guy makes as long as the workers pay goes up. We are not in a contest to see what's FAIR, we are in a contest to get the most for the most.
If the CEO of your company can double your wages do you really care if he pockets $1 Million or $10 Million. What is with the comparison. Hire a CEO that can make a successful business and improve my wages.
...I agree with a previous poster, thank you so much for the facts of trickle-down, Mr. Tomsa...amazingly concise and accurate...now, there is at least one fewer person who is unaware of that fact...wow, I didn't know how uninformed I was...again, thanks...
What is "trickle-up economics?" Are "average Americans" going to offer jobs to anyone? Are they going to create new concepts and technologies, write business plans, arrange financing, form companies, take risk, manage a workforce, and compete effectively? Or are they going to do what they've always done: submit job applications to work for CEO's who have done those things?
Reagan let the free market work. The 1970's was a decade of stagflation. Under Reagan, the 1980's and then, thanks to Reagan, the 1990's were two decades of historic economic growth. Wealth today is much greater than 1980.
Tomsa is like the proletariat of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. He wants to turn the tables on the bourgeoisie, except that unlike those poor peasants, his dissatisfaction is rooted not in deprivation, but in envy. If he wants more, he should work harder and smarter. No one is stopping him.
Look, trickle down economics is Keynesian theory - it didn't work because Keynesian theory doesnt work.
A real policy that works is just to cut taxes and cut spending, aka give the people their money back and let them spend it as they see fit.
I always find it amusing when conservatives start their "hero worship rant" over Ronald Reagan....
Reagan is a man who is given credit for many, many things that he did not do....I always call the ex California governor "presidential platitude" or "Ronnie Raygun," or the "Eureka Flash." All three nicknames fit the former Hollywood "B actor" to a "T."
I constantly see Reagan lovers talk about the man as if he was the "second coming of Christ."
The truth is simply this.....Reagan NEVER carried a balance budget at any time during his 8 years in the White House. His deficit spending would have been much, much larger than it was if he hadn't borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. And trust me, he borrowed billions and billions of dollars that were never paid back....
Also, "presidential platitude" didn't bring the Cold War to an end all by himself. The Berlin Wall and the fall of communism in East Germany & points east, including the Soviet Union, was on its death bed long before Reagan made his historic speech saying "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
If you don't believe me, go read Jerry Ford's book that came out a short time after Ford's death...Ford, a fellow Republican of Reagan's, tells several interesting stories about you know who!
When talking about the Reagan years economically, it should be pointed out that the economy was in much better shape during the Clinton years than the Reagan years.....
For example, the GDP grew at a much faster rate under William Jefferson, than under Reagan. Not only that, Clinton left office with a budget surplus which Reagan never had....
If Reagan had anything going for him, it was the fact that he made people feel good about themselves.......sort of a FDR approach of the 1980's......
I think Reagan would take offense at being likened to FDR.
So the USSR was on its deathbed when Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the wall? I suppose it would have come down with Carter as president? Or Mondale? Or Dukakis?
Reagan had Democratic Congresses. Every budget he sent them was balanced. They went along with the tax cuts, but they didn't have the guts to tell their constituents that the free lunches were over. Reagan took what he could get. And the tax cuts powered the economy to the greatest 20-year expansion of the century. It lasted through Clinton's years, partly because he had a Republican Congress that held back the spending. Not to mention that Clinton arranged to have Social Security put on the general budget. Under Reagan, borrowing from Social Security was deficit spending; under Clinton, it wasn't. That was a big part of how Clinton "balanced" the budget.
I see Clinton lovers and Obama lovers among the libs today. We each love the leaders that personify our values. We just disagree on the values.
lazyfaire.....intersting take on your part.
First of all, Reagan had two big political heroes (idols) during his life. Hang on to your hat when I tell you the names of the two....one is predictable, not the other.
Reagan was a big fan of Calvin Coolidge & Franklin Roosevelt. Complete opposites on most political issues but both were idols of the "Eureka Flash."
Of course, as you may or may not know, Reagan was a registered Democrat for some 25 years of his life......up until the late 40's, early 50's. He was also a big union guy.....president of the Screen Actors Guild.
Historians tells us that communism was some what struggling dating all the way back to the 1960's & 70's.
At the time of the Cuban Missles Crisis, Khrushchev knew that the communist system needed tweaking if it was going to survive...
Khrushchev knew that they were spending far too much on guns & not enough on butter.....the hard-liners in Moscow didn't agree however. In the end, it was one of the things that cost Khrushchev his job! That, and the fact that the Soviets were forced to take their missles out of Cuba. Of course, we had to take our missles out of Turkey as part of the agreement...The American press never picked up on that...
The belief in the United States during the late 50's & early 60's is that there was a huge missle gap and the U.S. was on the short end of the gap. That really wasn't true but many Americans believed it...We were well ahead of the Soviets on the number of missles. They were struggling to stay up with us....
The economy during the Clinton years had NOTHING to do with the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. Remember the recession that George Bush sr. was trying to deal with towards the end of his only term?
The recession, despite the fact it was short lived, caused him his reelection....remember "Read my lips..no new taxes" and "Its the economy, stupid!"
In other words, Clinton inherited a recession, much like Obama has, but not nearly as deep and serious as the current one.
Yes there's a lot of inaccurate information out there when talking about Reagan. Despite what the die-hard conservatives say and believe, Reagan was a slighty above average president......nothing more. JMHO!
El Lobo:
I know Reagan was a Democrat. I know he led SAG. I know that Communism could not survive because its economic model didn't work. I know what the missile counts, both delivery vehicles and warheads, including MIRV's, as well as destructive power and accuracy per warhead, were for the U.S. and the USSR (I was in the Air Force for 25 years). You assume I don't know these things, because my politics don't agree with yours, so I must be ignorant.
Reagan changed his political party and his political philosophy once he saw the light. You could, too. I am sure FDR fell off his list of heroes, or idols as you say, after that. I'm also sure Calvin Coolidge, a truly good president, stayed on. As for being a union member/leader, Screen Actors Guild is like the baseball players union. Different from electrical and auto workers. As for being a union supporter, witness PATCO.
Clinton inherited an economy that was already recovering from recession. The recession of '89-'90 followed the savings and loan debacle (remember RTC?), a result of moral hazard, not Regan economic policies. Bush the elder did go back on his word on taxes, and it did cost him the '92 election. Clinton was elected by Ross Perot, however. He had to be the luckiest president ever. Elected in a three-man race as the economy was recovering (which he took credit for), serving during eight years of peace (remember the peace dividend?), and going out on the verge of the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor (which he didn't take credit for). Things were so easy for him that he found distraction in sexual dalliances around the Oval Office.
Reagan broke the Soviet Union by upping the military ante beyond what he knew their economy could handle. His goal was to defeat them and end the Cold War, and he succeeded. That is greatness.
lazyfaire.....I don't believe I said that you are ignorant. That never came up any where in my post. One can believe what ever one wishes however. So think what suits you....Keep in mind, however, that no one can make you feel inferior with out your consent....
I don't buy into your revisionist line that Clinton's strong economy was due to the policies of Ronnie "Raygun." With that line of thinking, you will be telling me that if and when Obama turns the economy around, it will also be due to Reagan...
Go ahead and feel free to give Reagan full credit for bringing down the Berlin Wall and destroying communism in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. I'm sure you will believe that until the cows come home even though communism was already on its death bed prior to "Dutch" greatly increasing the military budget in order to force the Soviets to also increase spending...
Here's what Jerry Ford said about his fellow Republican, Ronald Reagan:
(I'm sure you know who Jerry Ford was....Right?)
"It make me very irritated when Reagan's people pound their chest and say that because we had this big military build-up, the Kremlin collapsed ," Ford told his home town newspaper, The Grand Rapids Press.
Ford contended that his own negotiations of the Helsinki accords on human rights did more to win the Cold War than Reagan's military build-up.
In short, Ronald Reagan is greatly over rated as a president. He was a man who never really stopped acting despite the fact he was no longer in Hollywood. He was big on platitudes and short on carrying out the promises that he made to the American public.
El Lobo:
You didn't call me ignorant, I said you assumed I was ignorant. Otherwise, you would not have believed that I needed a history lesson. Save your psychoanalysis for yourself.
Clinton supported and signed NAFTA. I give him credit for that. But he inherited low tax rates, which brought the economy out of the '89-'90 recession sooner. He inherited an economy that grew 3.33% (real GDP) the year before he took office. Then he took credit for it, and of course, all the liberals gave him credit. Talk about your revisionist history.
Until Obama raises tax rates, yes, Reagan's influence is still being felt.
You must have had to really dig to find that quote from Ford (wasn't he the carmaker?). Actually his name was Gerry, not Jerry. And he was the only non-elected president, serving a partial term. Not exactly a giant of a statesman. If true, the quote is ludicrous. The Helsinki Accords on Human Rights? That will always be remembered as a towering achievement.
I know there is no changing your mind, but I'm always open to serious debate. Silliness ("Raygun") is a bore, though.
lazyfaire.....Actually Gerald Ford.....shortened to Jerry. Kind of like John Kennedy shortened to Jack.
Despite the fact that Ford (no relation to the Henry clan) was a Republican, he was a statesman.
People still criticize him for his pardoning of Nixon but looking in history's rear view mirror, it was probably a good thing......it allowed the country to put the Watergate mess behind us and move on.....
Of course, the Nixon pardon was a factor in Ford's defeat in 1976 to Jimmy Carter. Another factor being the desire by American voters to see change take place......much like this last election. I don't have to tell you that the average voter was sick & tired of the Bush administration and most voters clearly showed that in how they voted this past November.
You're determinated to put Reagan upon a "god like" mountain top, and run interference for him, when it comes to valid criticism of him. That's nothing short of amazing. I do believe that you see Reagan as the "second coming of Christ..."
"Raygun" is an appropriate nickname for the "Gipper." His plan to spend several trillion dollars on a star-wars program that was not & is not needed says it all. Your military background, particularly the air force, leads me to believe that you probably was on Reagan's star-wars band wagon......Am I wrong about that?
Reagan was a nice guy but by the time he became president, he was on the down hill slide in more ways that one... His wife actually made decisions for him and her fascination with astrology, and using it to tell her husband what he should do is beyond scary.....You're probably completely unaware of that......Right?
Most of today's conservatives (I include you....) live and die with their image of Ronnie "Raygun." He always claimed to be a fiscal conservative, but the size of government and the cost of government actually increased on his watch....
This is a guy who slept through Cabinet Meetings and often didn't know what was going on.....
Reagan talked a lot about what he was going to do, but often did very little when it came to getting it done.
He "promised" to scale back the size of the federal government; abolish the Dept. of Education; and sell TVA to a private company. In the end, however, he did none of those things... The Dept. of Education actually grew in size (as it did under GWB) on Reagan's watch.
Jerry Ford once said that Reagan was great on telling people what he was going to do but pretty weak on doing it.....I always found that interesting!
El Lobo:
Gerald is not shortened to "Jerry." You can't admit even the smallest error.
Reagan would have been offended at the suggestion that he was the second coming of Christ. As an atheist, I didn't see him that way. You can have your stereotypes.
You can keep your juvenile nicknames if it gives you giggles. I believe in a strong national defense. I believe Gorbachev thought SDI was a credible defense, and he had no comeback, so he folded.
As for Nancy's astrology (I knew), I couldn't care less. She wasn't president. However, your man in 2000, Mr. Inconvenient Truth, was (is) a fervent adherent of numerology (so was Hitler). I'm sure you voted for him.
If you were alive during the 80's, you must have slept through them. Reagan only missed a couple of cabinet meetings.
When it comes to telling people what he's going to do, nobody beats Obama. And he's great at setting up straw men and shooting them down.
lazyfaire......I think I hit a nerve or two....
Actualy Gerald Ford was called Jerry Ford for most of his political life. He also was called "Jerry" when he played football at the University of Michigan.
I was very much alive during the 1980's....I'm probably older than you....so have a little respect for your elders.....Just joking about the respect thing... Not about the age! I voted for LBJ in 1964 & can remember where I was when I heard that Kennedy had been shot in Dallas....
Yes, Ronnie slept through several/many Cabinet Meetings. He was actually in attendance but asleep at the switch......nodding off, waking up & nodding off......a common occurrance.
Until Texas George came along, Reagan had the record for taking the most time off while president....That's one of several things that they have in common...
Yes, Nancy wasn't the president but she sure knew how to pull the strings that was needed to lead her beloved Ronnie down the road she wanted him to go....
The story behind the firing of Reagan's Secretary of Treasury (Nancy didn't like him....) is a classic.
Donald Regan was not only a very important part of the Reagan administration as the Secretary of Treasury but he was the man behind Reganonics. He and Nancy didn't see eye to eye & Dutch went along with his wife & fired Donald Regan....Bad, bad mistake on Ronnie's part.
When it comes to Gorbachev, the Russian leader believed that for the Soviet system to survive a great deal of tweaking had to be done....He just waited too long to start the process. Actually, the tweaking needed to be done when Khrushchev was in power...
I also believe in a strong national defense but the point I made is very true. The Star Wars program that Reagan wanted was not & still is not needed........a total waste of money that could be spent on more important things....I'm sure you don't believe that but what new?
The proof will be in the pudding when it comes to Obama. I believe he will do an outstanding job. He's young & full of energy; (no naps for him in Cabinet Meetings....) intellegent; loves information; is willing to make changes if he believes its necessary and he can communicate with people like few other presidents before him....
El Lobo:
No nerve struck, but you have to realize that I'm in the minority on this site. The attacks are ubiquitous. Your original tone was of a piece with those. Not sure, but I think I detect a change.
You got me on "Jerry." And you're ahead of me in years on the planet, and respect is due. I'm 58. Still think the silly nicknames are juvenile, your seniority notwithstanding.
I think you're pretty hard on Reagan. Gorbachev respected him, and considered SDI credible. If Reagan was incompetent, Gorbachev must have been a dunce. Or was Nancy on that aircraft carrier in the Atlantic?
Sounds like you're not a fan of Reaganomics. But you say Donald Regan was the man behind it, and that it was a bad mistake to fire him. Seems inconsistent, so I'm sure I'm missing something.
You give Clinton too much credit for the 90's economy. (Bet you didn't know the recession ended a year before he took office.) I considered him a pure politician: disingenuous, opportunistic, unprincipled. But as liberal as he was, compared to Obama, he looks like a blue dog Democrat. Obama is an ideologue with an extremely liberal agenda. He is not interested in information, his mind is made up. I admit I underestimated him. He is highly intelligent and far more dangerous than I thought.
Maybe we'll meet again in these skirmishes.
First of all, I don't believe you're in the minority on this site....far from it!
I don't beleive I'm too hard on Reagan. I just happen to believe that he's over rated as a president.
He was in over his head most of the time (too many naps....) but actually never knew it....which I guess was good since he left a lot of the day to day decision making to his assistants.
Believe it or not, Nancy had a great deal of input on many things....She wasn't on that carrier in the Atlantic but she didn't have to be....
Reagan seldom knew about any problem in detail and his backers always made the excuse for him saying that he wasn't a "detail man".....He was worse than McCain when it came to getting details in their proper place.....
Remember when McCain got the Shia and the Sunni's mixed up & his buddy, "Joe the Independent," had to whisper in his ear and tell him the difference? Typical Reagan type stuff..... Happened all the time.....
Reagan wasn't a true conservative but the right-wingers of today think he was....the press handled him with "kid gloves" and he ALWAYS got the benefit of the doubt. Nothing bad stuck to him (the "teflon man").....the Iran-Contra cover up comes quickly to mind....
I don't endorse "Reganonics" (because it doesn't work...) but Donald Regan was a plus for the Reagan administration. He knew what was going on....Nancy thought he had too much input....She hated that!
I see that you're like many who sleep over on the right...you hate Billy Jeff and you, of course, refuse to give him credit for anything that he did. Looks like that's the same approach that you're taking with Obama....
One last comment...if the recession ended one year before Clinton took office, why in the devil wasn't "read my lips" reelected? Clinton's economic policies saved us during the 90's. Of course, the clueless man from Texas changed that once he became president....From a budget surplus to an "ocean of red ink" in a short period of time.....
Clinton was a better politician. As for everything else you say, with all due respect, I'm going to go throw up now.
lazyfaire.....
With all due respect.....
I've come to kind of like you, despite your short comings....I have a friend who's a specialist in psychiatry.......he works with people who suffer from "selective amnesia." I can give you his phone number if you wish...
All joking aside.....have a nice evening........