Summations Only

I am not an economist, nor do I understand economics all that much...but what I DO know is that the Laffer Curve has something to do with this Trickle Down stuff, as did Milton Friedman. (supply-side economics ) If the tax rates are too low, no revenue comes into the government and they make no money. If the tax rates are too high, why work at all?

There has never been an agreement between economists...some believe one theory and some another. I might say that whether coincidentally or not, the national debt shot up to historic levels since Reagan and is in an uncontrollable upward course (like a hockey stick graph) ever since. Im not sure if that had anything to do with supply side economics or not, but the other guy, John Maynard Keynes, was popular during the Great Depression. The government had no huge debt back then, either.

Two quick points:1) If someone has the ability to vote themselves a raise (as Congress) or improve their standard of living for life(Like a CEO) whats to prevent them from taking it from the lower economic classes in order to do so? Jobs may be created to run the business, but the evidence shows that these jobs are usually low wage jobs, at least in the industry that I work in. This of course addresses a micro economy, that of the business itself, and does not address macro economic concerns, such as what is good for the country.2) Labor Unions are historically in favor of Keynesian Economics. They love to complain about how much more the CEO makes than the workers, but, again, what does human nature tell us? If upper management was allowed to make more, would they then help the employees? That does seem to be their philosophy...though they would argue that if the businessmakes more, then all of the employees would also make more.

The labor pool is becoming global. I would assert that the US Middle (working) class is a victim of trickle thru! The money goes right past us on down the line...unless we have a union that uses seniority.

Yes, this is true. But since they have most of the money, and money is needed to fix the problem, what else are we gonna do?

This may sound horribly theocratic, but I believe that Trickle Down economics may have its best efforts showcased in the church. When a man with means can freely give to those less fortunate, apart from government legislated giving, he should do so.Indeed, rather than trickling, the money should pour down....freely given, and allow those with less to be blessed.Then maybe they will catch the spirit of generosity and bless others as well. Ive seen it happen time and time again at my store when we solicit (its our job) for charity. You see all kinds of givers. (or keepers)Some with means wont give a nickel. They only give at the end of the year, so they say, in order to write it off.A few give generously, but what I have noted is that it is often poorer (as I judge them) families that often give the most. By and large, poorer people are more generous than wealthier people.As an aside, a corporation is allowed a larger corporate tax break for charity than individuals receive. Thus what they essentially do is donate your donations and get it written off their expenses.

Before 1980, $18,000 a year was an upper middle class income. The poor made quite a bit less than 10k a year.Just for perspective, lets plug $10,000.00 into the Inflation Calculator where we find that $10,000 in 1980 is the equivalent of nearly $28,000.00 in todays money. I suppose that poor is a matter of perspective.

It seems that the trend has been deregulation. I am not well educated in this area, so bring me up to speed as to the benefits, for instance, of power and utility companies the old way versus AR? (After Reagan)