Friday, November 10, 2017 1:00 am
Trickle-down economics an easily debunked theory
Republicans preach in supply-side economic theory that if you direct the flow of income to the already rich, it will trickle down to the middle and the poor in the form of jobs. Well, it doesn't work.
It has been tried several times, and it has failed each time. The most recent example is in Kansas, where taxes were slashed, with much of the benefit going to the top. The result was a disaster. In addition to the income lost to the state, needed public services such as garbage collection, street repair and police protection suffered badly. Jobs were lost and a huge budget deficit occurred. The much-hyped theory that the tax cut would stimulate the economy to more than compensate for the enormous loss of income for the state failed, and the legislature was forced to reinstate the lost taxes.
It just doesn't work. Here's why:
Let's say I am the owner of a widget manufacturing company. My labor situation is sufficient; I have no reason to employ more workers until the demand for more widgets is more than I can handle with current staff.
But when does the demand increase? It's when the millions of potential customers have the money to buy my widgets. When that demand occurs and my supply can't handle it, that's when I will have to hire more people. So when working on an economic plan, the focus should be on middle income and lower classes. Investing on public works programs like bridges, roads, schools, sewer systems and other much needed public improvements will put people to work.
With more people working and with more money through lower taxes and income, they are now buying widgets and all other products for which they have waited. And as the demand grows, I will hire more to produce more.
It's really simple, isn't it?
Leonard M. Goldstein
Formerly of Fort Wayne
The primary reason there is so much disdain for journalism is the continued bias. How can there be so much emphasis on this Russian money issue without including the segment obviously involving the Clintons and their integrity?
If an industry is going to delve into the facts on any and all subjects, it should have the obligation and decency to report everything on the subject. Society no longer believes the reporting, and it's justified.
Why did reporting the news have to become political? Just answer that question and you have made a giant step in improving the connection between society and the media.
Virtues of tyrants not worth commemorating
I heard Gen. John F. Kelly talk about what a swell guy Robert E Lee was, albeit a slave-owning white supremest and traitor. The Civil War was a failure to compromise, Kelly said. Compromise what, that the South had the right to maintain slavery? And that those Confederate statues are part of our history? And I agree, they are.
Using that logic, let us erect a statue of Col. John Chivington, who ordered the Sand Creek massacre of 150 white flag-holding men, women and children, then mutilated their bodies and burned their village in 1864 in Colorado. Or Gen. Samuel H. Whiteside, who ordered the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890. Don't they a deserve a statue? Just part of history.
What about Byron De La Beckwith, murderer of Medgar Evers? Then there is Bull Connor:. A statue at the base of the Edmond Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama would be apropos? How about those jolly Klansmen who blew up the 16th Street Baptist Church, killing four little girls in Biirmingham, Alabama, in 1963; or racist Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox? Why not statues of these fellow Americans? All parts of history.
Therein lies the dilemma for Confederate statue proponents. Just what is the difference between statues of the above-mentioned and Confederate statues? There is none.
If you choose to embellish the virtues of tyrants, what does that make you?