The form of economic theory most embraced by the current administration is much the same as "Reagonomics" introduced by President Ronald Reagan.

That is, you create an economy and a taxation system wherein the wealthiest are left with a greater amount of resources with the expectation that they will invest in new and existing businesses and create additional jobs. The income paid to the newly employed workers will then continue to "prime the pump" of economic growth. With this type of economic theory one of the most important measures to be controlled is inflation, which if permitted to rise would slow the entire economic engine.

For decades this system worked. Worked pretty well, in fact. But something has happened that has stopped the cycle of investment and new jobs. We see it as the current financial crisis and the freezing of the credit markets. The causes for this development are complicated--too complicated to begin to discuss here.

What does seem apparent is that the cycle of trickle down economics that has worked reasonably well has been interrupted. To restart that economic engine would likely take a very long time--probably years.

The short-term need to re-start the cycle is not to wait for new jobs to be formed by investment by the wealthy, but to get spendable funds into the hands of the lower and particularly the middle class. They will spend immediately, and if they spend on the right things--furniture, appliances, electronics, instead of t-shirts, cigarettes and beer--the engine should begin to regain momentum.

In my opinion, probably both economic theories have validity. The McCain approach would take a lot longer to result in recovery than the Obama approach. Probably the best approach might be the Obama tax plan initially and then in a couple years a return to the skew of the Bush tax rates.

But what do you think the chances are of thst happening?