Trickle Down or Up?

As always I write this column in response to a friend who try to convince me how wrong Reagan was when he develop the trickle down theory! Of course I always defend Reagan as one of the greater Presidents we have had , and I misspoke in my defense of him when it came to the so-call Trickle down. In my years at BYU and other academia I never heard the term trickle down in economics classes.

In fact, one could say that the trickle down theory was not what Reagan was advocating at all.

Where did it come from? Well some quote David Stockman, the President’s Budget director, But Stockman was not even among the first thousand people to make that claim that advocated a "trickle-down theory.

Liberals so love the term it they been using it as a catch phase for years saying that was what Reagan was advocating and in the same breath denouncing it! There is a tenacity to cling to use words similar to safeguard their vision of the world and of themselves.

What often confused to them is what many including myself would call supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer.
Laffer, is a "supply-side" economist who became influential during the Reagan administration as a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board (1981-1989).
In economics, the Laffer curve is used to illustrate the idea that increases in the rate of taxation do not necessarily increase tax revenue. . Increasing taxes beyond the peak of the curve point will decrease tax revenue.

So his theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy.

It really not hard to find examples of this in our own economic history , which predates Reagan, during the Kennedy administration.

Kennedy cut the tax rates, to provide incentives to change economic behavior and it increased economic growth and individual incomes to the point that, more tax revenue was coming into the Treasury than had been the case under the higher tax rates. That is exactly what happened.

But it seems so many liberals will forget that this gave more money to the Federal Government which it seems Congress like under Reagan decided to go on a spending spree.

In reality Liberals or the so-alled progressives do not see their use of spending as a problem, and none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor.
The political notions are dependency of the poor not on not the people that supply the jobs which in most cases are the upper class, it is to make them depended on the political class for those jobs.

The left are not as much interested in supplying of jobs for the people as to hey are in controlling the lower class thought political power. Obama’s redistribution of the wealth in this country is example of this.

Those who need to reeducated themselves need to take economic classes and realized that for Tax, money comes out of the pockets of the poor in this country.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics writes:

“If education provides anything, it should be an ability to think -- that is, to weigh one idea against an opposing idea, and to use evidence and logic to try to determine what is true and what is false. That is precisely what our schools and colleges are failing to teach today.”

The sad part of it is that the liberals Progressives now believe that they need to express a new theory known as the Trickle up. This one has it roots in socialism in that all things come from the labor class. That would surprise many in industry including people like Thomas Edison, and maybe Walt Disney, whose Dreams of inventions were develop and cultured by the likes of JP Morgan and Bank of America.

Small Business fail by the thousands not because the workers who made it happen, didn’t do the job. Many factors including competition which some progressives/liberals can comprehend. Nor is this unique. No one who begins a company would expect to break even -- much less make a profit -- during the first year or two.


As much as they believe the workers are the real power it takes people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison and even Walt Disney with the help of JP Morgan to bring the product to market. Without these men the workers are left without direction and without a cause. The one thing the Left never gets, is that the Rich which includes those leftist Movie stars never pay taxes, it is the common folks who see the price of products go up and realized they are the ones paiding the taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

The real tax relief would be to make all corporations Tax free. What a concept!

Liberals and Progressives, The Same Old thing!

Not long ago, I wrote about the so-called progressives ie liberals, at that time I had a long time debate with a friend of mine, who I will call Paul.

Paul has always been a good friend and I count him as close, But of late, I wonder if he has abandon his principals in order to accommodate his new found belief system.

Now Paul hasn’t really change, he still believes in all the same old so-called liberal Ideas from Abortion on Demand to High taxes. But what has change is definitions. Remember, Progressives/Liberals remake themselves so very often that sometimes the definitions get blurr.

For example, recently many in their community begun to realized the the term Global warming wasn’t convincing enough so a new definition was created for the same ole, same ole. “Climate change” became the words.

It all has to do with trying to convince people that they are different , New found religion, as it were. They run from the label much like Tom Hayden a well known radical liberal has has done. So why do these so-called liberals like to be called Progressives these days. Well I figure that they figure conservatives have termed “liberal” in such a negative connotations.
So Many in the leftists community felt that those evil conservatives have successfully denigrated the word "liberal" in the minds of many voters.

As such, the term "progressive" is a useful public-relations tool, replacing "liberal" in campaign literature and helping sway voters who would otherwise not vote for a leftist candidate. But they do it so many times in all sorts of social causes.
So I wonder what exactly is someone progressive towards? That’s why I always laugh about that label. At least when you say your liberal you have liberty entwined as a concept, even thou that not exactly what you believe in. Liberty in today’s progressive or liberal world has nothing to do with real liberty.

Everybody likes progress yes? Capitalists think progress is more profits. Materialists think that progress is more machinery, technology, and toys. These are measurements of progress that are not used by progressives.
When we are talking about the politics of human society, a progressive is a person who believes that the progress of humanity is to be measured by the betterment of the human condition for the largest proportion of people as possible and that politics should in all cases be used to better the human condition for all and to distribute the benefits of society equally so that individuals receive equal opportunities for education, work, and fulfillment and no class, group, business, or private organization is enriched at the detriment or exploitation of people. Everything I mention is in itself contrary to what the current crop of liberal or progressives now believe.

But if you really want to think about it the so-called liberals or progressives are not at all progressive. They in really regressive. They believe in a so called Progressive income Tax, but as any economist will tell you it is regressive in nature. It forestalls growth and creates more trouble that it its is worth.

Other so called progressive ideas from Abortion to the environment are not progressive at all.

You really have think about the term to see that it’s not real. Everything about Liberal progressives is regressive. from the environment to lets say war? Recently the re definitions has begun to arrive in are current White House with the War on Terror being define to "Overseas Contingency Operation". I wondering if that could not only define what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Hillary’s husband tour of Red light districts in Foreign countries?

What has happen is that the pre 9-11 mentally has become apparent and in some cases the Blame the US for everything has rear it’s ugly head again. Some liberal/Progressives would say that the War on Teror was a darn inconvince and so what if 300 people died.

The new definitions are nothing new when it comes to the Liberals or progressives, It just how far back these folks want to reach back, which defines them as regressive after all.

The real progressives are conservatives and they though would gag people like Paul. Progressive conservatives want a flat tax, want it to be fair and equal. They feel that everyone should paid their fair share. So called liberal Progressives want to tax one group at the a higher rate. Not realizing that the very same group that they tax employes the other group. The real progressive help pass the Civil rights acts in the 1960's and the end of slavery previous to that.

Going from Taxes to abortion and realizing that every human has rights it seems that liberal progressives would rather kill off their tax base, by killing off the next generation of taxpayers, A progressive concept that still confuses me?

So what are we left with is new definitions from the so-called old school progressives. When you look at a 3.6 trillion dollar budget a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill and the trillions the Democrats has offer up to the American People, we can only say: This isn’t change it’s Regressive polices of the left with nothing Progressive about it.

Redefinitions do make you anymore different that what you were previously. Can you spell LIBERAL?

Force Unionization

In the days that the so called Progressives or as I call them "Regressives" are now trying their hand at forcing Unionization on the American people thought the vehicle of Card Check, it amazes me that they keep trying the old school regressive attitude that Unions are the only way.
As a child I remember the many strikes, when my father worked for Lockheed Aircraft in Burbank, California. As he was paid to stand a picket line for smaller per hour wages than than it he was working for the company. The pain of of the family trying to cope with him finding a part time employer willing to hire him for what could be only a few months, while the strike was deadlocked. It always seem sad that these union bosses pick the Holiday season to announced a strike. It was very certain in my mind that certainly their children would not suffer as my family did when the strike was on. They never had to worry about their mortgages or paying the electric bill or putting food on their table.

When the strike was over My father never made the money back in lost wages and time by striking the company. It embitter him towards the Union and he nearly hated them more than the company. My father loved Lockheed and enjoyed his time there, the Machinist Union, not so much.

As I was growing up I became aware that when I when to union get togethers amnd it seem the only ones that never suffer were the union bosses, and it also occurred to me that this was a racket. The union bosses always seem to do better than the union workers. A class system in a place that was suppose to be classless and it seems to go on even today.

What Regressives and some liberals would like is a return to yesteryear where a few very wealthy barons control, oh so little or resources. Unions at that time became a necccesasy evil in order to protect in some industries workers rights.

However, as society progress and as we become far more sophisticated, unions are becoming obsolete. Very much like the Model T. Individual rights is what has replace it, in modern society. However there is some that feel that there only way to progress is in the Unions. Union have become a relic of the past and most Americans see them as such.
The Democrat party seem to have this close relationship with Unions like the AFL-CIO and Teamsters.

A needed outlet for money for corrupt unions is the Payback for the Obama Presidency is to increase membership in unions. From a small 19 percent Nationally they see they chance to force union membership by using Card check. Card check is the ticket, since they cannot win a non union shop honestly.

George McGovern who has always been a Champion for labor unions said this

“I’m concerned about a bill in Congress that would effectively eliminate an employee’s right to a private vote in deciding whether to join a union. It’s hard to believe that any politician would agree to a law denying millions of employees the right to a private vote."

It does to some including McGovern that the democratic party has abandon and turn their backs on democratic workplace elections. I’ve listened to all their arguments and reviewed the facts on both sides. The "Card Check" Forced Unionism Bill would leave workers vulnerable to union-boss intimidation and make you pay the price in higher costs at supermarkets, Gas stations and Department stores and other industries.

With our economy already blasted with recession and nearly constant political agitation, attempts to "compromise" over forced unionism really could push our economy over the brink.

Former Bill Clinton top advisor Lanny Davis -- is now trying to broker a back-room deal that would result in more workers being corralled into forced unionism and under the thumb of the union bosses.
In fact, their scheme is no doubt a preemptive surrender to Big Labor.
And even worse, these foolish and destructive actions could end up helping pass the "Card Check" Forced Unionism Bill outright.

As you know, the "Card Check" Forced Unionism Bill denies workers a secret ballot when voting on whether or not they want to be part of a union. A firestorm of union intimidation would rain down upon literally millions of employees who would be shoved into union collectives and forced to pay union dues.
If passed, the Card Check Forced Unionism bill would vastly increase the forced-dues-funded power of the far left Big Labor bosses.
And giving union officials more coercive power over American workplaces and the economy is a prescription for economic disaster, just as it was near the beginning of the Great Depression. The inevitable results are skyrocketing unemployment, businesses destroyed, inflation, and worse.

But ending secret ballots is just the beginning of the evils of this legislation. Once workers are bullied into union ranks without even a secret ballot, union officials would make outrageous demands and -- a mere 90 days later -- Obama Administration bureaucrats will be empowered to step in and "solve the problem," ultimately imposing the terms and conditions of employment on the workers and companies.

With all that's at stake, it is inexcusable for companies to try to placate the union bosses and sell out hundreds of thousands of smaller ones, to say nothing of the millions of workers that would be affected.

Unions are in aspect a vehicle of the past and need to be stopped. It is time the Conservatives fight back against this type of socialism.

Senator Dodd, Please Resign!

Senator Chris J. Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut seems to have his problem being honest and with many scadals such as countrywidw and now it maybe time for this senator to hang it up and resign from Public life. Oh yes it is time for the people of Connecticut to rise up and boot this low life lawyer back to Connecticut for reading lesson or perhaps he can join a kindergarten class at the next semester.

No matter how you feel about the Senator he knew was evolved and executed the protection of Bonuses for AIG executives. Perhaps he never thought people would discover he was behind it. Perhaps he never knew what he was doing anyway. Since 99 percent of the congressman and senators never read the stimulus bill in the first place. But you know the sad part about this is the pace they, the democrats ram this stimulus bill thought and not one person today can tell you what was in it.

But I am thinking he very well knew what was in the bill and was hoping like Peewee Herman in that theatre that he wouldn’t be discovered? Sorry Senator Peewee Dodd, People do know how to read, well at least the thousands who comb the bill to find this little section of the bill. However, what the congress is doing now is hiding their backside and running for cover.

What bothers me the most s how many other total nonsense items were stuck in this so-call stimulus bill and how many more of thee new inventive items will be discovered?

Now it is time for old Senator Chris (Peewee) Dodd to hang it up! Resign! Senator Dodd should know better being a lawyer and all. Gosh, did he read the fine print? Chris Dodd's arrogance knows no bounds, but he is not the only that should resign . Barney Frank should join him along with Secretary Geithner! 170 million is nothing to laugh about! Senator Dodd your a embarrasment to reading teachers everywhere!

20 Trillion and Counting?

Today I spend most of the day looking at some of the results of the a recent poll by Fox news and I’m wondering if the so called Progressives or what we call them here Liberals have any idea what they are doing to this nation?

It makes one wonder if they live in the land of Oz or some fairy tale land where money doesn’t exist? So far they are close to spending some 20 ( Now get this) 20 Trillion, with a “T’ dollars.

That far excess any thing George Bush every did and one commentor said that, that is more money than any President from George Washington to George W. Bush has ever spent!

President Obama is turning out to be the Biggest spender in the history of this country and one the American people are going to blame when the economy really goes south, more than it is right now!

Of course, President Obama has a answer to all this when he has his attack dogs as in James Carville, Paul Begala and his beloved Chief of staff Emanuel go after Rush Limbaugh and boost his ratings? Why Rush? Of course this is the change we all wanted, Is that right? I remember this coming from our beloved leader, His majesty Obama:

"We have real problems in this country right now and the American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, no diversions, not manipulations."

Ok, what exactly has his people been doing? What kind of economics is this? Why are we spending trillions on Honey bees and Tattoo removals and even another Bridge to nowhere?

Oh sure he has 63 Percent of the American people approving of the job he is doing, but those same people are expressing the idea by 61 percent that the country is going Bankrupted!

In that same Fox News Poll, people want something done about the deficit, but certainly the Democrats are not going to do anything as long as the can print up more money and we suddenly find ourselves in Hyper inflation.

Rush Limbaugh wishes President Obama to Fail, if he keeps going down this route.. I must say I would agree with Rush on this one. This is the first time in history we can predict the end of a Administration at the beginning of it. This Omnibus spending with it’s 9 thousand earmarks along with the spend-a-rama stimulus Bill, is certainly helping along the process of electing a new Republican President. The American People will elect anyone, if he get to Jimmy Carter’s stats

In a Op/Ed peice by Thomas L Friedman of the New York Times writes about the banking crisis:

"I hope my fears are exaggerated. But ask yourself this: Why couldn’t former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson solve this problem? And why does it seem as though his successor, Tim Geithner, won’t even look us in the eye and spell out his strategy? Is it because they don’t get it? No. It is because they know — like Roy Scheider in the movie “Jaws,” when he first saw the great white shark — that “we’re gonna need a bigger boat,” and they’re too afraid to tell us just how big."

But I disagree with Friedman on this one, I think the Administration darn well knows what they are doing, and don't care! Just as Obama dismiss the downward trends of Wall Street and then when off to another Big spending programs such as Healthcare. Can you Imagine and Republican President doing that with the Liberal Press we have currently? Certainly not! Can you imagine having the stock Market lose half it's value and a Republican President answering the same question as Obama did? They the liberal Press would crucified him.

Oh yes, but if Obama keeps spending the way he is, the big boat would look the very similar to the Titanic, and we are the people in the water ready to be sweep down with the ship.

We better learn to swim in cold water or freeze!

Excommunicating Our Morals

I have not written any articles much these days, came down with a bad case of stomach flu and have been kind of lay up these pass days thinking about a good article to write. ‘

I am skeptical, and always have been of any Liberal (so called) Progressive claiming love of his church and then heading into a different direction than their church believes in. A good example of this is Nancy Pelosi stance on Abortion and Harry Reid’s stance on Gay rights.

Just recently a Catholic pro-life group based in Front Royal, Va., had a letter from its Rome office delivered to the Vatican which it called upon Pope Benedict XVI to “formally excommunicate” from the “Catholic” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

With that in hand the Pope did warn Speaker Pelosi about how far she has stray from Catholic Doctrine. The Pope it is my understanding lecture the Speaker concerning it. Pelosi later express how honor she was in meeting the Pope and yet very little change in her beliefs concerning it.

I would be very concern had this been me to have someone who represented God tell me that as much as I believe to be a member of that organization, I should reprect the doctrine of that organization in my political as well social beliefs.

A far cry from Democrats these days whose moral issues are dictated by holding a finger in the air and wondering which way the wind blows. I do have a problem with people who wish to claim they are part of an organization, but then are consistently at odds with it.

Their is a soluction to Reid and Pelosi problems and that is either resign from their respective churches or asked for excommunication.

Excommunication not only tells the world, "we do not tolerate this sort of behavior," it also serves as a social sanction so that members of any organizations are warned not to do certain things considered "out of bounds". People who wish to remain "in" the organization are warned that if you do something considered morally aggregious, you are "out".

If this should be apply to not only to a Catholic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but also to a Mormon Senator Harry Reid.

Both Pope Benedict XVI and President Thomas Monson need to start searching their souls and decide very soon concerning the need have better examples of what you should do when concerning a moral issues.

Just to make myself clear, my objection to Pelosi or Reid's is base on moral issues and churches like the Catholic and Mormon church need to examine how these political issues follow their respective doctrines.

But in someways it just part of the game liberals on the whole play with their religions they belong too. It is hypocrisy!

However in thinking that Pope Benedict XVI or President Thomas Monson should execute their procedures is above my pay grade. But I wondering if these leaders realized that the churches are being used? If they come to a conclusion that what Pelosi and Reid say in Sunday school is not the same thing being said in Washington? What is even worst it seems that these Representatives are in actually working to destroy the very same churches they claim to believe in. Example of this in recent budget where charitable deductions have been wipe out for the very people that make those donations. It seems to both Reid and Pelosi have declare war on the very churches they, claim they worship in!

Growing up, I was always told we had to be good examples, why is it that we have Politicians who think Morality only needs to be conducted in the Church building! It does seem hypocritical if the Pope and President Monson sit on the hands and avoid this decision. In a way they are just excommunicating our morals by leaving these people in the churches amd meanwhile Reid and Pelosi are laughing!