![\"P\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2013\/03\/Obama2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n***<\/p><\/div>\n
***<\/p><\/div>\n
Bravo, Obama voters: your guy\u2019s doing great for his lobbyists, green companies, and the fatcats on Wall Street, with almost record-high stock prices (for now). For the little guy, not quite so wonderful. I\u2019m barely surviving as a full-time apologist, directly due to his idiotic policies, that have caused reduced sales across the board, for all kinds of products. But at least I still have a job. Pray for those who don\u2019t, and for folks to vote Republican in 2014, lest nothing will be done at all for the economy until 2016. <\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n White unemployment is 6.8%.<\/span> [additional source<\/a>]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Again, this is the ironic folly of groups voting disproportionately for the candidate who is hurting them the most. They see no relation between his policies and unemployment. The GOP task will be to convince these groups that there IS a direct relation, and that there are<\/i> alternative policies to this ongoing madness.<\/span> The government stops counting certain unemployed after a while: the ones who have given up altogether. So that puts up the appearance of reduction. I think the actual rate would be 12-13%. <\/span>The real numbers are above: 296,000 no longer employed. That\u2019s a lot of folks and a whole lot of suffering.<\/span> My only raises are new book contracts. I achieved four of those in the last year-and-a-half, yet my income went down 10% last year; it\u2019s so bad. My royalties had already been decimated compared to five years ago. <\/span>Thus I keep knocking myself out, working harder and harder, in order to have less income than I used to.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n If the economy were normal I think I\u2019d probably be doing better than ever. If only . . . there has never been an election where the result had such a direct negative effect on my income.<\/span> Carter would have done the same, but I was in college then and not supporting myself yet.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Dave Armstrong, what Obama policy (idiotic or otherwise) do you attribute to directly reducing your sales?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Higher taxes, more regulations, the various stimulii, health care (that continues to raise health care costs), making the business climate lousy, leading to layoffs and unemployment and reluctance to invest. This affects everyone, so that we have less spending cash, and less disposable income, which in turn lowers sales. Since my income is entirely sales (book royalties) and (to a far lesser extent), donations-based, I have to suffer disproportionately, because folks buy less books and make less donations in a bad economy, when they can barely pay their bills.<\/span><\/span><\/span> Ah. Ok. I was looking for more than partisan punditry points. Like the actual policy and analysis why an alternative policy would have increased your sales, etc. Some of these points are\u2026nebulous\u2026at best. Others seem even contradictory to your position.<\/span><\/p>\n Ah. Ok. It was straight economic analysis (obviously from my conservative outlook). You asked a question; I answered honestly, and you come back with mere generalized disagreement, minus any substance. This is your pattern. It gets quite wearisome. <\/span> My only investment is my own books. My house certainly isn\u2019t an investment anymore. It\u2019s losing value every month and I am paying over twice what its market value now is. All I have is my books, which are my life\u2019s work. Thus, an economy that has very low sales does immense harm to me, and I\u2019m not getting any younger (55 in July). <\/span>And it is the same with many businesses: especially the small ones, and the sole proprietorships.<\/span> Good for you. You question me, then when I give a detailed, sincere reply you simply mock and sneer and don\u2019t engage in conversation. You don\u2019t like what I say. I don\u2019t like how you refuse to engage in normal conversations (at least with me). So we\u2019re at cross-purposes. Like you, I attempt to converse with all sorts of people. Unlike you (again, at least with me), I actually engage them, rather than childishly pursuing \u201cgotcha\u201d moments and rapidly descending into condescending sneering and disdain, as you habitually do with me.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> If I feel that a thread is worthless and unedifying or uneducational to my readers, I get rid of it. Call it quality control. It just so happens that one or two of the threads you were in, were of this nature. If you improve your level of communication (in semi-street language, stop acting like a pompous ass), then it will stay up! Your choice. In any event, my patience with you is running pretty thin.<\/span> <\/span>I gave the general answers that (fiscal) conservatives usually give. You didn\u2019t like the answers; you wanted them to be more specific. I don\u2019t think they need to necessarily be with regard to these issues under discussion. My reply was about describing how Presidents (and parties in control of Congress) directly affect the economy. What they do (or don\u2019t do) has an impact.<\/span> When I was referring to \u201chigher taxes,\u201d in context it had to do much more with corporations: on that macro-level: not as much individual taxes and micro-level stuff. Thus, much of your present (rare attempt at) counter-reply about taxes was irrelevant from the get-go, since that wasn\u2019t what I meant. You took my comment out of context, and ran with it, warring against a straw man. It may look good to the observer, but now that I have noted that it was a non sequitur<\/i>, it\u2019s not nearly as impressive. The argument is that higher taxes and regulations on corporations and small businesses stifles economic growth.<\/span> You want concrete examples of my decrease in income, and arguments indicating direct causation. Well, the most obvious one is the loss of a part-time job in Dec. 2010. That came about as a result of the non-profit organization that I worked for, experi<\/span><\/span>encing a massive decrease in donations (it is an outreach that specializes in Catholics who are joining or returning to the Catholic faith).<\/span> This will be my last comment (I apologize for the delay; busy weekend.) <\/span> [I did make an error here. I confused the corporate and individual tax rates. Reagan lowered the highest individual income tax rate from 70 to 28% (that\u2019s what I was referring to). See an article<\/a> about it. According to another article<\/a>, here are the results of Reagan\u2019s policies:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n 1. 20 million new jobs.
Teenagers (25.1 percent), <\/span>
blacks (13.8 percent), <\/span>
Hispanics (9.6 percent) <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
This sort of \u201ccausal blindness\u201d is extraordinary and almost unprecedented. The only precursor I know of is FDR during the Great Depression: where his policies never ended the thing (only WW II did); yet everyone thought he was wonderful, and so kept blindly voting for him. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
This nonsense should have started to recover by 2011 at the latest. But because Obama is a socialist it just goes on and on. <\/span>I still believe that the Dems are gonna pay a huge price in the long run for this economic lunacy. They may hoodwink and fool people for a season, but they\u2019ll get their come-uppance once further disasters start happening.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nExcepting the Great Depression, the average length of a recession or depressed economy is about two years. It is directly due to Obama doing nothing or exactly the wrong thing, that the current mess is now over four years, with no end in sight.<\/span>
I\u2019ve observed this in my own life on at least three occasions: the early 70s; Carter and the early 80s (when I was trying to get my first major job and was unemployed two years). Reagan got the economy going again by lowering taxes.<\/span>
Again, a minor recession occurred at the end of Bush I\u2019s tenure in 1992 (thus we see the cyclical nature of it: about every ten years). Bill Clinton knew how to get out of that because he\u2019s an economic centrist; even tilting a little to the right. But not Big O: he\u2019s gonna do the economically stupid thing come hell or high water: no matter how many people he harms in the process.<\/span>
Thus this madness looks like it\u2019ll continue indefinitely until we see a complete collapse of the stock market, with all the dire consequences of that.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
If you want real discussion, then engage in it. You\u2019re quite capable of that, for sure (apart from your positions), if you put your mind to it. Otherwise I\u2019ll simply ignore you henceforth, if you\u2019re merely looking for \u201cgotcha\u201d moments and chances to lob insults. But others are reading this, too, so my efforts here aren\u2019t a total waste of time.<\/span>
I don\u2019t have time ((let alone desire) for an extensive treatment of basic economics. That is your burden, not mine, if you lack understanding of it. We know from past experience that certain policies stimulate business and the economy and others do not. We can actually learn from history (a novel concept!). <\/span>
Reagan and Clinton and Kennedy all successfully did that, with regard to stimulating economies, so it\u2019s not merely a \u201cpartisan\u201d thing. There used <\/i> to be widespread agreement on what works and what doesn\u2019t. The present policies obviously do not<\/i> work, or else we would have had an upturn long before now.<\/span>
You voted for Obama (apparently, twice). If you think he is so wonderful and good for the country (for reasons beyond same-sex \u201cmarriage\u201d: that we know you are fired up about), by all means tell us why. Make your case, if you think mine is so insubstantial. Don\u2019t just say in your usual manner that mine stinks. You say you are a \u201cdisappointed\u201d voter. Fine: how come?<\/span>
Like I\u2019ve said, I have to live with the consequences of Obama\u2019s and the do-nothing Democrats\u2019 policies (their doing nothing about very important matters, like job creation and the immense debt) every day. You\u2019re doing fine in your well-paying occupation. Obama\u2019s policies don\u2019t harm nearly as much those in the upper middle class and upper class: the 10%; the 1% . . .<\/span>
Wall Street is doing fine. Hollywood and music stars are doing great. Those with lots of money to invest continue to do so. It\u2019s those of us who are struggling every month to simply meet our family budgets who are suffering, while Obama plays golf and hobnobs with Beyonce, etc., and utterly refuses to work together with Republicans to accomplish anything.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
The medical profession is also suffering because of the craziness of Obamacare. We have had a wonderful family doctor for 22 years, since my first son was born. He has practically been run out of his profession. He\u2019s not a conservative; he\u2019s a Jewish liberal. But he knows why he is struggling.<\/span><\/span>Alas, Bruce and I have a little history. I have refuted his atheist anti-biblical arguments so many times, he\u2019s not inclined to listen to what I have to say about anything. :-) That\u2019s why we talk past each other and never rise to actual dialogue.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\nA quick note before I am off to work today. <\/span>I attempt to obtain information from various perspectives from theist to non-theist, liberal to conservative to libertarian, American to Asian, etc. It is just your misfortune to be one of conservative sources where I occasionally question.:-) <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nMy pattern and practice is easily seen\u2014first I get clarification, then I probe a bit to see how consistent the claim is. Alas, in the past I have interacted with you on your Facebook page in this manner, and the post disappeared. I no longer spend the time doing more thorough analysis, as it seems to be quite a bit of work just to have it disappear.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
It\u2019s not just with you that I do this, on occasion. I remove political threads quite often, because they aren\u2019t my main purpose here. Most of the threads I remove (lately) are dominated by \u201ctraditionalist\u201d Catholics. In that case, I am objecting to the manner and lack of argumentative acumen (or charity) of a portion of my own group.<\/span>
You talk about effort?! I put all kinds of effort into answering you this time, only to get back your usual acerbic, short, disdainful potshot. Sorry, that ain\u2019t conversation. You can do far better than that.<\/span>
You don\u2019t need to act like an ass with me. I\u2019m well familiar with atheist modes of argumentation. I treat atheists with charity, as I do any other group with which I disagree. I\u2019ve visited your group in-person (for the knowledge of other readers): once with sixteen atheists and agnostics and myself as the only theist \/ Christian in the room: spontaneously answering scores of questions.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
Now I ask questions, and if your response does not provide any illumination, I indicate I have read it, and will be moving on. Sure, I do it with a bite\u2014this is my nature.<\/span>
Here you indicated there were certain Obama policies directly influencing your income. While I suspected this could be difficult to substantiate, I asked first in case I missed something. Perhaps there was some policy or implementation that did<\/i> impinge your income, and I would agree with you. As I have said before, there are some things I agree with you on Obama, some I disagree, and some (same sex marriage) there is no reason to even comment as we both know each other\u2019s position and disagreement.<\/span>
Just to show how I would normally respond, let\u2019s take just one of your indicated policies\u2014\u201chigher taxes.\u201d Presumably, because your income is from people spending discretionary sums, you are indicating higher taxes means less income and therefore less buying your books. It would seem the very basic analysis would start with reviewing:<\/span>
A. When did Obama increase taxes; and<\/span>
B. Your income level at or near this period of time.<\/span>
While we may have a \u201ccorrelation vs. causation\u201d issue, it would seem to me this would be at least the jumping off point. Yet in looking back at the last four years, Obama did not increase taxes! (Until 2013) Indeed, during some of the period, taxes were actually decreased<\/i> by a reduction in individual social security contribution. <\/span>
If individual taxes are directly related to your income, then during the period the taxes were decreased<\/i> one would think your income must be increased<\/i>.<\/span>
I could have pointed this out. I equally could point out concerns about the other general categories you indicated. But why bother if this post will simply disappear?<\/span>
No more for now, I really must get to work.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
This economy has been in the toilet for over four years now. You can try to blame Republicans for that if you wish. Normally, the party in control gets the blame. Bush sure as hell caught all kinds of blame when he was in there. Yet Obama doesn\u2019t seem to be subject to the same criticism or oversight.<\/span>
He<\/i> claimed that his stimulus would bring unemployment below 5%. It didn\u2019t. He<\/i> claimed things would be much better by now. They aren\u2019t. He<\/i> had both houses under Dem control for two years. He<\/i> claimed that Obamacare would reduce health costs. It didn\u2019t; they\u2019re going up. He<\/i> claimed that Bush was \u201cunpatriotic\u201d for bringing about a debt far less than his own. He<\/i> claimed that he would cut that debt by half. He didn\u2019t. Instead, he exponentially raised<\/i> it.<\/span>
All of this brings down the economy and keeps it down. There is cause and correlation here. Whether it is Obama or not, my income overall has decreased (literally 10% in 2012). My book royalties are drastically decreased from five years ago. Something has caused that. If it\u2019s not Obama and the Dems\u2019 policies, you tell me what it is. You can\u2019t argue that it\u2019s decreasing quality in my books (trying to blame me somehow), because I continue to have bestsellers in my field (my current Quotable Newman<\/i> is doing very well). I managed to obtain four new book contracts in the last two years. An author (in any field) can scarcely do better than that. That\u2019s the bread and butter of an author. I even got one with a major Protestant publisher (for my Quotable Wesley<\/i>), which is a huge breakthrough into new markets.<\/span>
So it ain\u2019t me. It is less disposable income generally. Obama doesn\u2019t know how to stimulate an economy. It doesn\u2019t have to be the way it is.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
Thus, when both Kennedy and Reagan decreased taxes, including (for Reagan) vastly lower corporate tax rates, the economy exploded with prosperity. That helps everyone: a rising tide lifts all boats, etc.<\/span>
I give you my word that I won\u2019t delete any thread where you are active. Perhaps then you will engage in actual point \/ counter-point discussions: after I have taken away your great fear of your laborious wisdom being consigned to Internet oblivion.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
Now, clearly the bad economy caused that scenario to come about (that much seems unarguable from any perspective). The question then becomes: whose fault was that? I have argued in the past, and provided documentation that Bush and the Republicans were opposed to the practices of the government-related housing \/ mortgage \/ real estate businesses (promoted by the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). They were warning that a crash was gonna come soon.<\/span>
Sure enough it did, and of course they were blamed for it, as always (while Dems and Frank and Dodd got a pass). Bush did spend too much and got excessive. Most conservatives agree with that. I say it was primarily<\/i> the Dems\u2019 fault. And now it is almost solely their fault that things continue to be in the tank, since he\u2019s been in there four years, and the Republicans have virtually no power. Everything the House does to try to make a change is DOA on Sen. Reid\u2019s desk. Thus, how can they be blamed?<\/span>
This is why I blame Obama directly for much of my own woes and decreases of income. I mentioned earlier that, historically, excepting the Great Depression, economic downturns rarely lasted more than two years. This continues on, 4 1\/2 years and running, with no end in sight, because Obama has no clue what he is doing. He does idiotic things, like not okaying drilling, and the famous pipeline, that would create many thousands of jobs and prosperity. We could easily become energy independent, with all that is happening in North Dakota and elsewhere, with huge reserves being discovered: but not with HIS brain-dead energy policies.<\/span>
This is some of the reasoning I bring to bear in analyzing why things are the way they are. I\u2019m the one suffering (with many millions of others). You\u2019re doing fine, as far as I know. It\u2019s easy to \u201carmchair quarterback\u201d on the economy when you\u2019re doing great. Those of us who have been harmed by the economic lunacy have a very different perspective. I\u2019m trying to support four kids and pay a mortgage. Teaching and being an author never were very lucrative professions. I didn\u2019t choose this profession for big money in the first place. I just wanna pay my bills. I need all the help I can get, but Obama literally harms me and makes it far tougher to survive as a full-time author and Christian worker: precisely because bad economies greatly lower contributions to religious workers and book sales alike.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
It is no surprise you (and those sharing your beliefs) consider my positions refuted, or that I am a pompous ass, or grant no charity. Equally unsurprising, th<\/span><\/span>ose sharing my beliefs consider the same about you. [shrug<\/i>] It is human nature in these types of discussions. I am resigned to it, and muddle on.<\/span>
I also understand you don\u2019t like my style. I use different means depending on medium\u2013as Facebook is a more shortened form, I figure a few sentences or significant question demonstrating a difficulty is sufficient. (And as previously pointed out, even that much effort can disappear\u2014why exert even more?) As all my presentation forms upset you, I will refrain entirely.<\/span>
And to finish this discussion, if by \u201cHigher taxes\u201d you were referring to corporate tax; again I would note corporate taxes did not increase during Obama\u2019s first term. [Although one could point out increased corporate contribution to Social Security, this did not occur until 2011, after your indicated loss of income.] Again, the analysis fails to conform to the claim. I would also note Reagan increased corporate tax, so I am unclear as to your claim regarding Reagan \u201cvastly lower corporate tax.\u201d [Indeed the very reason Reagan could lower individual income tax was by offsetting it with increased corporate tax.]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n2. Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.
\n3. Unemployment fell from 7.5% to 5.5%
\n4. Net worth of families making between $20,000 and $50,000 grew 27%.
\n5. Real gross national product rose 26%.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n