Reagan's Question Reversed

In the debate between candidate Ronald Reagan and incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan looked into the camera and asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" While I was not a big fan of Jimmy Carter, he faced a difficult era, as did his immediate predecessor, Gerald Ford, as the nation's dependency on foreign oil had grown tremendously, the divisive Vietnam War had scarred the nation's psyche and the scandals of President Richard Nixon's administration had helped to bring much skepticism about government to the country. A couple of crises in the Middle East, beginning during the Nixon administration, drove oil and gasoline prices up, putting a drag on the American economy and bringing a strong current of inflation to the economy, as oil/gasoline costs impact the cost of everything else.

Since Ronald Reagan implemented trickle down economics under the name "supply side," and a broader economic program dubbed "Reaganomics," is the COUNTRY better off? If you're part of the wealthiest segment of America, you can truly say you're better off. More and more of the nation's wealth has been going to the wealthiest of the wealthy  It didn't come out of thin air folks, it came from your pockets. This isn't magic. On the other hand, incomes for most other Americans have either lost ground or basically stagnated since the days of Reaganomics. The nation's debt under Reagan soared, including private debt.* That means the interest paid to finance that debt, both public and private, has taken a big chunk of money. Where did it go? What segment of society owns the overwhelming percentage of stocks and bonds? It's called a "transfer of wealth" folks, and it's being transferred from most Americans to the wealthiest Americans to this very day. Is it being transferred there because they need the money? No, this is about power and ego trips, and you're paying to finance those ego trips. It is interesting how some Americans who grew up decades ago and who became successful in a system where taxes were higher, now say taxes have to be cut so their kids or grandchildren can prosper too. Some of the greediest of the greedy, I mean, some of the wealthiest of the wealthy, want further tax cuts for themselves. In the meantime, since Reagan took office on January 20, 1981, is American education better? Is America's infrastructure better? Are average Americans more economically secure? Reagan was an economic fraud who used deficits and money printing, while claiming to be against deficits and money printing. That's part of the legacy he really left.

Another part of Reagan's legacy was the move to turn loose a bunch of psychopathic individuals who have run over other Americans in an attempt to satisfy their egomania by amassing more and more wealth, regardless of who else suffers, and at the expense of the country. They have perverted the meaning of freedom for their own self aggrandizement, and they will help fund anyone who will further their cause. It is no coincidence that they are now searching for other sources of money to soothe their troubled egos. They ship American jobs overseas without batting an eye, then use cheap labor foreign countries as examples as to why American unions want too much money for workers. Of course I don't recall hearing the argument about the wealthy of those nations making less than America's wealthiest of the wealthy. No sirree, YOU make too much, not them. They have a sense of entitlement. Now they can't wait to get their grimy hands on Social Security, something their parents and grandparents dreamed of. All the while about half of America snoozes away, oblivious to what's going on, at times complaining about how the country has gone down hill, but then doing nothing to stop the escalating slide.

* Only during the last couple years of the Clinton administration did the country live within its means, and in fact, there were surpluses used to help pay down some previous debt. The plans which got us to that point came from bipartisan deals, including between President George Bush (Sr.) and Democrats in the early 1990s, and again between President Clinton and Republicans in the mid 1990s.

WORD HISTORY:
Trickle-This seems to be an English creation, although it is derived from a Germanic source, which gave English and the other Germanic languages forms of the word "strike." It traces back to Indo European "streig," which had the notion of "to rub, to stroke, to press." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "strikanan," with much the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "strican," which meant "to rub, to stroke, to smooth out, to wipe off," but it also had a further meaning of "to move, to run, to flow," perhaps from the notion of "something moving over the surface," as the base meanings denote actions requiring "motion over a surface;" as in, "to stroke the dog's head;" "to rub your forehead;" "to smooth out the soil," for example. From the verb "strican" came the noun "stickle," a tool used to sharpen cutting tools; that is, "to rub them until sharp." This then produced "stricklen," a verb that meant "to have tears flow down the face." English and some other Germanic languages initially used forms of "drop/drip" to convey the meaning "trickle." Gradually the initial "s" sound died out by the late 1200s, and the word also broadened in meaning to include water or other liquids, and a noun form, derived from the verb, meant "brook, creek."