March 13, 2019

Statistics hold that the Democrats were the ones who created jobs. Not the Republicans who caused a massive trade balance deficit.

The very Democrat-influenced City of Pittsburgh; home of six
Super Bowl Championships and other professional sports crowns,
as well as the birth place of commercial radio, the drive-thru
gas station, the public television station, robotics institutes,
wire cable suspension bridge, Bingo, motion picture theater,
air brakes, aluminum-shelled skyscraper, Zippo Lighters, etc.
It was thrown into havoc by Reaganomics.
Entry Note, aka ad limine statement, aka preliminary statement:

I am neither a Democrat nor Republican.  Thus, my writings aren't propaganda for
any one side of the two-sided American political system.  In addition, I am neither
a Communist, nor a Socialist, nor a neo-Confederate, a nor Oligarchist, nor a Nazi,
nor an Anarchist, nor Libertarian.  I am neither a member of the Green Party,  nor
the Natural Law Party, nor the Constitutional Party, nor the American Conservative
Party, nor the Modern Whig Party, etc., etc., etc.  All in all, this article is NOT an
advertisement for the Democratic Party.  However, it is a blanket condemnation
of the Republican Party and all things Republican.

A little while ago, I monitored a few minutes of the Rush Limbaugh Show, only to
find that the Viagra smuggler and his advertisers continue to lie to millions of right
wing conservatives, many of whom are located in socially isolated and backward
areas of America.  The following phrase from an advertiser who was selling some
type of book was stated in a tone of indignant certainty and end-of-the-world ur-
gency: "Republicans create jobs and Democrats lose them."

False.  He outright lied.  The opposite has been statistically true, for decades. 

Enter Harry Truman, a president who lost popularity at the end his presidency, to
the tune of an embarrassing 22% approval rating, as of February of 1952.  Now,
the typical Reagan admirer who can barely read his NASCAR program without
moving his lips would immediately assume that Truman's unpopularity was due
to a very high unemployment rate.  However, in 1952, unemployment was never
higher than 3.4%.  In fact, it was as low as 2.9% that year ... under the unpopular
Harry Truman, a Democrat.  The score in the post-WWII survey is Democrats 1
and Republicans coming to bat.

At this point, keep in mind that the way of calculating the U.S. unemployment rate
was changed during the early Reagan years, around the time when the rate was 10.8%.
Therefore, the new way of figuring the unemployment rate made unemployment look
much less than it actually was during Reagan's second term.  This was equivalent to
playing with loaded dice.  Let's continue:

Under Eisenhower, the unemployment rate rose to 7.1%.  Thus, under a Republican,
the rate of unemployment doubled.  It later decreased to 5.1%..  However, when Ike
left the White House, the rate was 6.6%.  Thus, the unemployment rate under Repub-
lican Dwight D. Eisenhower was much higher than when he entered office.  It's now
Democrats 2 and Republicans 0.

At this point, keep in mind that the Republican platform then was much different than
it was today.  The Republican Party, even during the 1972 campaign, committed itself
to LOW military spending.  Let's continue the post-war survey:

At the fourth month of Kennedy's presidency, the unemployment rate was 7.1%.
It then decreased to 5.5% at the tragic end of his presidency.  The score is now
Democrats 3 and Republicans 0.

Under Texas Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, the unemployment rate was never over
5.6%.  When Johnson left office the rate was a very low 3.4%.  It's now very con-
vincing.  Democrats 4 and Republicans 0.  Rush  Limbaugh propagates lies.

When Nixon entered office, the unemployment rate was 3.5%.  It increased to 6.1% and
was 5.5% when he resigned.  Under yet another Republican's presidency, the unemploy-
ment rate rose.  Democrats 5 and Republicans 0.

Under Ford, it rose to 9.0%.  Yet, the economy was vibrant, to the point of the United
States being the #2 exporting nation on earth.  Thus, the health of the economy showed
the moral acceptability of Distributive Justice, in terms of Welfare payments and food
stamp allotments.  None the less, the unemployment rate was 7.5% when Ford depart-
ed from the White House, meaning that is rose 2 percentage points during his presiden-
cy.  Democrats 6 and Republicans 0.

Under Jimmy Carter, the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6%.  Then came April 1980.
The rate started rising.   At the end of Carter's presidency, the rate was the same as it
was when Ford left office.  This is a tie.  Thus, it's still Dems 6 and Repubs 0.

Under Reagan, the unemployment rate sky-rocketed to 10.8%.  Then came a change
in the calculation of the unemployment rate, making the statistic look not as bad as
it was.  Plus, Reagan increased federal jobs, and used the taxpayer to get the unem-
ployment rate to drop.  The added feature was that the pay rate of certain types of
jobs recaptured by those previously laid-off dropped dropped.  Therefore, Reagan's
unemployment decline was artificial in more than one way.

Even though the way to calculate the unemployment rate was changed for Reagan's
second term, the rate still would have decreased a bit, if the calculation method used
during the Carter years was used during Reagan's second term.  This means that the
Republicans get one point, even though the decline in the rate was done at the ex-
pense of taxpayers ... and also done at the expense a private citizen's purchasing
power, in as far as concerning housing costs and disposable income.

This is the Republicans' only score.  You now see why the Republican campaign
managers throughout America create Ronald Reagan Hype.

They don't use Ike, because he was vehemently against exorbitant military spending.

They don't use Nixon, on account of him resigning in disgrace.

They don't use Ford, even though he managed to get unemployment to drop to 7.5%.

They don't use George Bush the First, because he championed the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and today's Republican is heartless and ruthless.

George Bush the Second destroyed the future of America.  So, Republicans sing the
praises of the unemployment rate decrease during Reagan's second term, while never
admitting that Reagan caused the rate to sky-rocket in the first place.  Quite frankly,
any action would have gotten the Reagan-induced 10.8% unemployment rate to go
down.  Do not be deceived.  Ronald Reagan was exceptionally stupid, exceptional-
ly worthless, and void of any foresight.  He was a very fake actor.

Concerning the other recent presidents:

Under the first George Bush (Herbert Walker Bush), the rate was as low as 5.0%,
early in his presidency.  It then rose to 7.8%.  When he left the White House, the
rate was  down to 7.3%.  Thus, it was almost the same unemployment rate as the
one in existence when Jimmy Carter left office.

When George Bush the First entered office, the rate was 5.4%, meaning that it rose
1.9% during his presidency.  He elected to not use the artificial means to lower the
rate as did Reagan, because the Berlin Wall had collapsed.  There was no cause to
increase the size of the military and the non-military federal government.  In as
much, the score is now Democrats 7 and the Republicans 1.

During the Clinton years, the unemployment rate steadily dropped.  Arkansas native,
William Jefferson (as in Jefferson Davis) Clinton, inherited a 7.3% unemployment
rate.  Under him, it went as low as 3.8%.  When Clinton left office, it was 4.2%.
Democrats 8 and Republicans 1.

Under the second George Bush, the rate did a roller coaster act.  He inherited a 4.2%
rate.  It elevated to 6.3%, dropped to 4.6%, and then rose to 7.8% at the end of his
presidency.  The Great Recession ensued.  Democrats 9 and Republicans 1.

Under Obama, the rate was as high as 10%.  It is presently at 7.4%.  There is no
debate that the 112th Congress deliberately sought to sabotage the Obama presi-
dency, displaying hypocrisy in the process.  One example of its hypocrisy goes
as follows:

The US Congress liberally gave debt ceiling limit increases to Republican Ronald
Reagan (18 times) and Republican George WMD Bush (7 times.)   Yet, the TEA
Party congressional members used the ceiling increase as a weapon of economic
blackmail during the Obama years, sending America's credit rating downward in
the process ... thereby sabotaging all of America, in the attempt to unseat Obama.

The final score is Democrats 10 and the Republicans 1 in Job Creation.

In conclusion, the unemployment statistics are on the side of the Democrats, show-
ing that Rush Limbaugh and TEA Party politicians lie, in order to gain popularity.
This constitutes Republicans gaining power and influence by fraud.

For unemployment stats, additionally refer to:

March 9, 2019

The small business tax diatribe remains a Republican smoke screen

This topic resurfaced on right wing talk radio in October 2013.  It then was a
topic on MSNBC.  During the government shutdown, it was used to condemn
the Affordable Care Act, but only through fraudulent misrepresentation.  It's im-
portant to keep in mind that 97% of American small businesses have less than
50 employees each.  Now, in review ...

There are a number of reasons why it's a lie to claim that the rich have to get
richer, in order for jobs to be created.  Firstly, the Bush/Cheney years proved
this to be a lie, in that wealth was being amassed by private individuals, while
unemployment rates skyrocketed.  During the Great Depression, everyone
lost money.  During the Bush Recession, the rich didn't lose dollar value in
their accounts.

Secondly, the personal bank accounts of the rich have nothing to do with cor-
porate retained earnings.  Thus, the health of a business is not dependent upon
the wealth of a Mitt Romney who hided blocks of cash in overseas tax havens.

If corporations don't issue added shares of stock, and if corporate sales don't
 increase, there will be no newly created jobs.  In fact, the individual holders of
disparate wealth who have sent the wealth overseas only takes away from the
circular flow of money, thereby costing jobs.  Making the rich richer in Ameri-
can loses jobs.  Wealth holders such as Romney become the true burden on an
already burdened society.

During the dirtiest presidential campaign in US memory, Paul Ayn Rand Ryan
stated that we have to lower small business taxes,because small businesses are
the job creators.  Firstly, this is a lie.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, small business created no more than 29% of the jobs.  Large companies
created 45% of them.  Ladies and gentlemen of America, your politicians of
the past 32 years have been a pack of liars.


                        The Christmas Season Job Creation Phenomenon

Secondly, consumer demand and disposable income are the only job creators.
If the consumer has no money to spare, no new jobs are created.  Proof of the
fact that increased consumer demand creates jobs is ------- Christmas Season.
Stores hire more people, not because the rich got richer in November, but be-
cause their will be more customers in December.  Case Closed.  The modern
Republicans have been lying to you, all along.

Thirdly, any one large corporation hires more employees than any individual
"small business."  However, Corporate America sent manufacturing and cus-
tomer service operations to low-wage nations.  This is what caused the long-
term unemployment crisis that loomed large in 2008.

Fourthly, there is an ulterior motive in politicians falsely claiming that small
business is the principle job creator in America, and therefore, need to be giv-
en massive tax cuts.  It goes as follows:

Small businesses and billionaires are taxed according to the same tax table,
namely, the Personal Income Table.  This means that, whatever benefit Con-
gress provides for small business, in terms of personal income tax rates, it
simultaneously provides for millionaires and billionaires.  The Republicans
in Congress can pretend to be reaching out to small business owners, and ap-
pear to be all-so-caring, but the reality is that they are doing little more than
serving the interests of the holders of intense and disparate personal wealth.

Why do Republican politicians favor the rich?  Is it ideology?  ANS:  NO.
The holders of wealth have ample amounts of campaign donation dollars.
Favoring the poor isn't good business for a career politician.

In this age of anonymous & limitless lobbyist campaign donations, this type of thing
is an element of Government to the Highest Bidder, in a sneaky ... pernicious ... the
pea & shell game ... way.   The result is that of advancing the Republican doctrine
of selfishness, for the benefit of a predatory few who seek to accumulate obscene
amounts of wealth without any accountability as to how it comes to be accumulat-
ed ... and at whose expense the accumulating transpires.        

                                Let us unveil the deception, step by step

The forms of small business:  They're something one learns during his/her first se-
mester in Accounting and/or Economics.  The phrase, "small business," is the re-
frain of the Republican chorus, as if Republicans really are looking out for the little
guy.  In all honesty, the phrase is used as a diversion, in a Republican con game.

The con game is too blatant for anyone not to notice who attend on a few (hundred)
economics, accounting, statistics, and business law classes, as did the author of this

To start, small business comes in the following forms:  1] a Sole Proprietorship,
2] a Partnership, 2b] an S (or Z) Corporation, and 2c] an LLC (a limited liability
company.)   S Corporations and LLCs are taxed like partnerships. 

An S Corporation works much like a partnership in that the profits or losses of
the business are reported by each of the stockholders.  This means that each
stockholders' share of the profits or losses constitute personal income or loss.
At last count, any one S Corporation can have no more than 100 stockholders.

The advantage of an S Corporation is that it avoids the double taxation corpora-
tions must face.  Double taxation consists in the following:  A corporation first
pays taxes on its profits.  Shortly thereafter, the individual holders of the corpora-
tion's "preferred stock" pay taxes on the dividends received from the corporation.

The amount paid to the preferred stock shareholder is reported as the stockhold-
er's personal income.  Thus, it's only the amount of money which becomes the divi-
dend payout which is taxed twice.

The important features of the sole proprietorship & partnership are that:

1] ... both business types pay the same tax rate as does a private citizen.  That is
    to say, Sole Proprietorship Income is taxed as Personal Income.

2] ... a person owning a sole proprietorship (as well as the persons owning a part-
    nership) are personally liable, without limit, for all of the losses and liabilities of
    the business owned.  In contrast, corporations have limited liability.  This trans-
    lates into the abusive fact that the wealth in the personal accounts of corporate
    managers is never withdrawn, in order to pay for corporate debts & liabilities.

    This explains the gross mismanagement of corporations during the Bush II years.
    That is to say, management can send its corporation into obliteration and never
    have to personally pay for the damage it caused.  Yet, this damaging of a cor-
    poration is known as Breach of Duty of Loyalty.  In as much, the dissolution of
    Ampad and AKS Steel were cases of Breach of Duty of Loyalty on behalf  of
    the Mitt Romney who is known for 180 degree turns of the issues, concerning
    anything that doesn't benefit the wealthy.  In benefiting the wealthy, Romney is
    merely serving himself.

Now, the Republican politicians keep stating that the tax rates of small business
must be lowered.  In reality, the politicians are pushing forth the pressure to low-
er the personal income tax rates of the unjustly wealthy.  Incidentally, the unjustly
wealthy are defined as those who profited from low-waged sweatshop labor, in
violation of the Association of American States' Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Those American States, incidentally, are the nations of the Western Hemisphere. 

The remedy needed is this: 

Create a separate and distinct tax rate for sole proprietorships and partnerships.
Why has not congress done this?  ANS:  The same reason why congress never
afforded to the executive branch of government the line-item veto.  In the alter-
nate, provide tax incentives, tax credits, and tax deductions to small business
that don't give the holders of personal wealth advantages. 

Let us review: 

Congressman QRS allows Congressman TUV to have Pork Barrel Item XY in a
certain congressional bill.  Congressman TUV allows Congressman QRS to have
Pork Barrel Item YZ in the same bill.  Therefore, both congressmen will vote for
the bill, out of selfish motives ... re-election through Pork Barrel enticements to the
politician's constuency.

Now, if the power of the line-item existed in the US presidency, then it would be
possible that one or both Pork Barrel Items would be deleted from the bill both
congressmen supported.  This means that congressional wheeling & dealing would
no longer be a sure bet.

The United States Congress is a lunch room of school children saying things simi-
lar to, "I'll trade you my peanut butter and jelly sandwich for your potato 
chips."  Yet, you keep voting for the childish, hoping that they will give you a bite
of their sandwich.

The wheeling & dealing which helped, in part, to cause the national debt to stead-
ily increase would be non-existent, if the line-item veto existed.  This means that
each congressional member would no longer be able to manipulate a way to geet
pork barrel tax dollars into his/her constituency.  Pork Barrel dollars, at the ex-
pense of the taxpayer, add-up, as in an increased national debt.

Do not be deceived.  There is military spending which is pork barrel politicking.
Such enormous spending is NOT done for the defense of a nation which already
has two oceans and an ocean's gulf heavily protecting it.

The expression used to be, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."  In as
much, Congress refuses to grant the president the line-item veto, so that the mem-
bers of Congress can get re-elected.  In order for them to be reelected, they need
to deliver pork to their constituencies.   This brings us to the reason why congress
keeps the tax rate of personal income and sole proprietorships the same rate:

In pushing for lower tax rates for the unjustly rich, Republican politicians can de-
ceptively act as if they are caring deeply for the small business owner, being that
both people are taxed according to the same tax table.  The politicians support-
ing a lowering of the tax rate of those who unfairly became wealthy scratch the
back of the politicians supporting small business, while simultaneously making
richer those who are already obscenely wealthy.  As a reminder, the obscenity
of their wealth only exists in that they got it unfairly.  After all, common Ameri-
can citizens can't complete with foreign sweatshop wages.  Therefore, present
corporate executives are penthouse thieves.

Numerous American small businesses don't make nearly as much as certain
billionaires.  Thus, the con game isn't easily discernible by those unversed in
economics.  This is want makes it a con game.  None the less, the small busi-
ness owner and the unconscionable billionaire, as well as the rare individual
who made his money morally (without sweatshop wage labor and without
future contacts manipulation, etc).  The Republican ploy is to make the tax
rate a carrot-and-stick game for the small business owner who will not at-
tain to the income level of corporate billionaires who have NOT been pay-
ing their fair share and who have been the ultimate leeches, in sucking the
blood of underpaid workers throughout the world.  Look throughout your
house, car, and clothing ... at the "made in" labels.  How much of your pro-
perty was made in a sweatshop by a low-waged worker?

Then comes the incessant quest for deregulation.  Deregulation is the act of
ridding a nation of the police division which protects its citizen from the cor-
porate abuses of power and financial influence.  Deregulation is the quest of
Republican lawmakers to have lawlessness and disorder prevail.  The only
good economy is a fair economy.

March 8, 2019

The Frequency of Executive Orders through the Centuries.

Perhaps you are familiar with the right wing radio diatribes which claim that Obama
is going to be a despotic dictator, reducing all federal law to presidential executive
orders.  In the history of executive orders, he hasn't even made the top 15.  Instead
of listening to the same ole same old on the radio and FoxNews TV, simply look at
the stats yourself, to see if Obama actually is the mad executive order signer:

We start with President Barack Obama, himselfAt of the end of 2012: 147.
                                            His second term, unto December 7, 2014:   44.

Let us compare this stat with that of the Ronald Reagan whom the Republican Party
has been praising, as he if were the divine Alpha & Omega of all existence, greater
than the Eternal God:  In eight years, the Ronald Reagan who tripled the national
debt signed into law 381 exec orders, ranging from E.O. #12287 to E.O. #12667.
In the first four years, the Ronald Reagan who had an exceptionally low compre-
hension of economics, as was evidenced by the 10.8% unemployment rate in the
second calendar year of his administration, issued 211.  The Univ. of Calif., Santa
Barbara set the number at 213, incidentally.  You at least have the ballpark figure.

The summary of each president's first four years in office is :  Reagan 211.  
                                                                                                    Obama 147.

In Reagan's first two years of the SECOND term, there were 82 executive orders.
   With Obama.  but only until December 7, 2014, there were 44

Below is a list of the presidents who issued over 200 exec orders.

  1} Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the WWII President, issued                Time in office
       .............................................................................................3,551 - 12 yrs, 1 mo.
  2} Woodward Wilson, the WWI President, issued
       .............................................................................................1,803 -   8 yrs   ------
  3} Calvin Coolidge, the Roaring Twenties President, issued
       .............................................................................................1,203 -   5 yrs, 7 mos
  4} Teddy Roosevelt, the Monopoly Buster President, issued
       .............................................................................................1,081 -  7 yrs,  5 mo
  5} Herbert Hoover, the Great Depression President, issued
       ...............................................................................................968 -  4 yrs   -------
  6} Harry Truman, the Korean War President, issued
       ...............................................................................................907 -  7 yrs, 9 mos
  7} William Taft, the Sixteenth Amendment President, issued
        ..............................................................................................724 -  4 yrs   ------
  8} Warring G. Harding, the Teapot Dome President, issued
       ...............................................................................................522 -  2 yrs, 4 mos
  9} Dwight Eisenhower, the Interstate Highway Pres, issued
       ...............................................................................................484 -  8 yrs   ------
10} Ronald Reagan, while tripling the National Debt, issued
       ...............................................................................................381 -  8 yrs   ------
11} William Clinton, the NAFTA President, issued
       ...............................................................................................364 -  8 yrs   ------
12} Richard Nixon, the Watergate President, issued
       ...............................................................................................346 -  5 yrs, 6 mos.
13} Lyndon Johnson, the Vietnam War President, issued
       ...............................................................................................325 -  5 yrs, 1 mo.
14} Jimmy Carter, the Iran Hostage President, issued
       ...............................................................................................320 -  4 yrs   ------
15} George W. Bush, the War Crimes President, issued
       ...............................................................................................291 -  8 yrs   ------
16} Barack Obama, he who regarded life-giving co2 as a toxin
       ...............................................................................................276 - 8  yrs   ------
17} Ulysses S Grant, the 15th Amendment President, issued
        ..............................................................................................217 -  8 yrs   ------
18} John F. Kennedy, the Missiles of October President, issued
       ...............................................................................................214 -  2 yrs, 11 mos.

Note:  Donald Trump, in 2017 & 2018 ..........................................92

Plus:   - Madison, Monroe, and John Adams issued one order each.

           - John Quincy Adams issued only three.
           - Thomas Jefferson issued only four.
           - George Washington issued eight.

March 2, 2019

Conflict of Interest and Underhanded Deceit in the US House of Representatives.

Concerning farm subsidies, the bottom line (the thesis statement as to their existence)
is this:  Farm subsidies were intended to prevent price hikes and wild fluctuations in
food prices.   If farm subsidies do not achieve this goal, they are unjust.  These sub-
sidies were not designed to make a few farmers wealthy, at the expense of everyone
else.  Yet, a Tennessee congressional representative was vying for this to happen.
Subsidies ended up lining his own pockets, to the tune of $3.48 million.  Of course,
he pushed for a reduction in food stamp allotments, where money kept away from
those in need would go into his bank account.

The following was written before the Farm Bill was rejected by Republican and Demo-
crat alike.  The farm bill's demise is pivotal in what will form in the future.  This is be-
cause it was proven that there still are legislators in the United States who either have
consciences or who are tuned in to their constituents' emotional reactions.  Supporting
this bill was political suicide.  Yet, those who pushed for it actually thought that they
were about to perform a coup d'etat against every norm possessed by civilized society.
They have been doing everything possible to turn 21st Century America into 18th Cen-
tury France, shortly before the revolution which gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte.

In re:  The news report of the U.S. congressman from Tennessee who finagled his way
into the Agricultural Committee, despite the conflict of interest involved, and ever so
coincidentally enriched himself to with the very subsidies that right wing conservative
Republicans condemn as socialism.   The same congressman, Stephen Fincher, abused
the Bible, in taking out of context a solitary sentence, in order to justify lowering food-
stamp allotments by $20,000,000,000 over a three year period.  The report is that he
acquired $3.48 million in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies, from 1999 to 2012.   As a
pertinent note, 40% of all food stamp recipients are children.

In fact, the same Stephen Fincher found his way into the United States House Financial
Services Committee that oversees banks.  Well, Stephen Fincher is under investigation
for an alleged banking scandal.  It has to do with a $250,000 donation to his campaign
by a bank & trust where his father is on the board of directors and where the chairman
was already a benefactor to Fincher's campaign.   Fincher has a way of finding his way
into money channels.

Fincher was also named one of the most corrupt members of the U.S. Congress in 2011,
by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

This is the same Stephen Fincher who used merely one sentence in the New Testament,
taking it entirely out of context, in order to justify reducing food stamp allotments in this
day of high food prices.  When he did this he did something UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
He gave the impression that he was establishing a religion.  The truth is that he is mere-
ly a con artist using Christianity to deceive the gullible of the South into thinking that
he (Stephen Fincher) is the voice of God.  He is NOT.  He doesn't even look or sound
much like a man.

The following is a qualifying statement, concerning the congressman's use of merely
one sentence from the New Testament, to justify depriving the millions of children
living in poverty, the many elderly living in the same, and the painfully disabled of
America, in painfully reducing food stamp allotments.

The verse that Fincher read was, "He who doesn't work doesn't eat."  The conclusion
is that, according to Fincher, the following applies:  Three year old children living in
poverty must work or starve.  The elderly living in poverty must go back to work or
starve.  Those too disabled to work must work, thereby negating the government in-
surance program called Social Security which comes to the rescue of the disabled.
Five year old children living in poverty must work too, if you interpret the one New
Testament sentence used by Stephen Fincher the way in which he did.  Well, the con-
text of that one sentence goes as follows:

During the time of Saint Paul, a newly converted Greek community assumed that the
Second Coming of Christ would soon occur.  So, they stopped working on anything
earthly, because they figured that it would be "all that work for nothing."  So, Paul
had to correct them, and in doing so he set forth the rule that any one in the Thesso-
lonian Christian community who didn't want to work didn't get to eat.

Now, let us go to the Acts of the Apostles.  There is mention of charity being given
as a matter of course, thereby making charity is the Christian way.  Those in need of
food received it without having to specifically work for it.  This would include the
infirm, as well as whosoever else received Christian charity in deed.   Observe:

 Starting at Acts Ch. 4 vrs 32:  The community of believers was of one heart and 
mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they held 
everything in common.  With great power the apostles bore witness to the Resur-
rection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded to them all.    There was 
no needy person among them, because those who owned property or houses would 
sell those things and then take the proceeds of the sale and put it at the feet of the 
apostles.  They (the proceeds of the sales ) were distributed to each one according 
to his/her need.

This was known in the early Christian Community as the Daily Distribution, and it
resulted in the original apostles ordaining an order of men dedicated to that which
is called Distributive Justice and other ministerial duties of the true church.  The or-
dained order dedicated to this purpose is called the diaconate, as in diakonos.  The
individuals who belong to the order are known as deacons, and they are not to be 
confused with Protestant sects which broke away from original Christianity, stole 
its Bible and stole its nomenclature.   

Protestant deacons are a separate entity, not  affiliated with the order that links itself 
to the apostles.  In fact, Protestantism is a complete break-away from the Christianity 
of the Apostles.  After all, in heavily Protestantized sectors of this earth, a person as 
poor as Christ didn't get charity. Such a person got arrested for vagrancy ... arrested 
for being poor.  All in all, Tennessee congressman Stephen Fincher is clueless as to 
what true Christianity involves.  Thus, it was an outrage for him to claim that reduc-
ing needed food stamp allotments is the Christian thing to do.

Another passage in the New Testament which shows that Stephen Fincher has no-
thing to do with the Will of God and true Christianity goes as follows:

The Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 25 vrs 41 and further:   Then he (the King of Heaven)
will say to those on his left,   ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me no food.   
I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, 
naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ 

The Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 25 vrs 44 and further:  Then they will answer and say, 
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in
 prison, and not minister to your needs?’   He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to 
you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And 
these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” 

In as much, Fincher is violating a basic precept of Christianity, all the while acting 
as if he is a true Christian.  He is a fraud when it comes to Christianity.  In as much,
do not confuse a religious man with a religious hypocrite.   Fincher attempted to de-
ceive people into thinking that the Almighty God said that you have to reduce food 
stamp supplementation, while Fincher personally benefits from farm subsidy pay-

Even when it comes to the physically and mentally able, if the Republican congress-
ional members, since NAFTA Newt Gingrich's days of Speaker of the House, did not 
allow the egress of jobs from America into sweatshop & slave labor nations which
caused an outrageously high US Trade Balance Deficit, then many Americans would 
not need food stamp supplementation.  It's not the fault of the unemployed.   It's the 
fault of people like Stephen 'the Taxpayer Leech' Fincher who now wants to deprive 
gate padlocked workers, children, elderly people, and the disabled of even more of
the little they get in life ... while Fincher rings-up on his personal cash register tax-
payer-funded subsidies.

Concerning mention of authentic Christianity, you need to realize that the religion 
of the stereotypical "Bible Belt" has nothing to do with original Christianity.  In
fact, it is merely another one of the numerous Protestant sects, all of which reject-
ed essential elements of original Christianity, except for the Bible which they claim 
can be interpreted by any one of them.  

Protestantism simply tried to redefine Christianity.  Therefore, it rejects Christianity
and all of its laws of charity, as well as laws of justice.  This means that there are
people today who hated Christianity, when the truth is that the hate Protestantism.

The members of the Southern Baptist world only recently starting calling themselves 
Christian.  In doing so, they claim that they are the authentic Christians.  Well, it was
a short period ago when they called themselves Born-again Christians, thereby denot-
ing separation from original Christianity.  There was even a time when this sect called
itself Anabaptist.  

The bottom line is that the doctrine and moral code of these people is so remote from 
original Christianity that it is merely a grotesque caricature of Christianity.  Now, the
Bible itself states that "a tree is known  by its fruits."  It also states, "A good tree can
not bear bad fruit, and the bad tree cannot bear good fruits."  In as much, review the 
fruits of the Southern Baptist world.  In doing  so, you will realize that it was never

Christian in any capacity.  Rather, it's anti-Christian in deed.  I'll be polite and not 
enumerate the fruits of the Southern Baptist world here.

Incidentally, the Bible expressly states that not everything is in the Bible.  Therefore,
the Bible Belt world simply regards the Bible as an idol, as well as an excuse for that
world of hatred to not listen to the teachings of anyone outside of the Southern Bap-
tist, isolationist South whose people were talking about secession from the Union as
recently as the Year 2012.  The phrase, "They are still fighting the war down there"
still applies.  They don't have any interest in the north of the United States until it
comes time to take northern taxpayer dollars.

Stephen Fincher had the asinine audacity of quoting one sentence in the Bible, as if 
he were the ultimate expert on Christianity, in order to do something condemned in 
the Bible.  Stephen Fincher was NOT the one elected pope last March.  He should 
quit acting as if he were, because he makes Christianity look like hatred in essence.

You need to understand that evil people masquerade as holy people, in order to de-
ceive you into advancing their self-seeking agendas.  Evil people masqueraded as 
Christians throughout the centuries.  People equated the evils of these imposters 
with Christianity, causing the same people to hate Christianity.  Cromwell was on-
ly one example in the series of farcical people how masqueraded as Christians.

Your mind needs to process the reality of imposters hiding behind masks.  Such 
is the case with right winged flag wavers, especially those of the South.  To think, 
these are the people who proudly displayed the Confederate flag, even as recent-
ly as the 21st Century.  Yet, they ... the descendants who were willing to kill, in-
stead of preserve the union act as if the stars and stripes that their ancestors at-
tempted to destroy is the most important thing on earth ... next to their repeated
misinterpretations of the Bible.  The flag waving motiff is merely a diversionary

The bottom line is that Southern Baptist Protestantism was long ago condemned 
by those who succeed from the original form of Christianity.  Therefore, the evils 
of the Stephen Fincher types are not the Christian way.  So, don't hold Stephen 
Fincher as a model of Christianity, and don't measure Christianity according to 

 More on Stephen Fincher's ploy:

February 8, 2019

Bush Economics WAS Reaganomics, resulting in the worst monetary crisis since the Great Depression

  To start, you need to understand that George Bush Economics WAS Reaganomics,
  and under Bush's perpetuation of Reaganomics, the United States went through its
  worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  The Romney 2012 thesis state-
  ment was nothing other than Bush Tax Cut Economics 101.
Now, the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 10.8% under Ronald Reagan.  Yet, his
postmortem propaganda machine keeps talking of a Reagan recovery.  News flash:
Reagan tripled the national debt.  The National Debt Ceiling was elevated 18 times
under Reagan.  There was NO Reaganomics-style recovery.  There was the interven-
tion of democrat Tip O'Neill and republican Howard Baker.  Contrary to the conser-
vative assertion, Reagan needed to abandon Reaganomics at mid-stream.   He spent
his way out of the 10.8% unemployment rate, even in increasing the size of the feder-
al government. 

The Leaves on the Reagan Money Tree Were Hand Grenades

No money was being made by America in any aspect of Reagan's exorbitant mili-
tary spending sprees.  This is because all military spending yields negative returns
on investment.  In fact, in your first week of economics courses, you learn that mil-
itary spending is a leak from the circular flow of money.  During Reagan's term, the
national debt kept rising.  Someone else in the future would have to pay for the so-
called recovery.  Reagan was the originator of the Ponzi Scheme.  The two income
family and the latch-key kid was his legacy, also.  In fact, in 1985, the United States
become the top debtor nation on earth, even though it was the #1 creditor nation the
day Reagan took office.

Despite Reagan's attempt to salvage the nation that he was destroying,  the average
American's purchasing power dropped, apartment rental prices elevated,  the price
of houses rose, the wage rates of skilled tradesmen dropped outside of any federal
Davis/Bacon contract, and the two-income family became the norm, in order for a
family to afford during the Reagan years what a one-income family easily afforded
before Reagan took the oath of office.  Thus came the latch key kid ... the neglect-
ed child, thanks to the Reagan.

Throughout this time, the Fed was tightening the money supply, in order to curtail
inflation.  Letting the rich horde money was presented as Reagan's economic stim-
ulus package.  Two and a half years into his first term came the 10.8% unemploy-
ment rate.  His stimulus package backfired.  Now, the Bush tax cut resulted in the
2004 federal revenue being the lowest since 1950, when measured as a percentage
of the economy.  Then came the disaster of 2008.  The Bush tax cut was backfiring,
yet nothing was done to remedy the oncoming crisis.  Republicans have a way of
ignoring indicators.

        Reagan Increased Taxes, to Compensate for his Original Tax Cut

Reaganomics failed so hideously that Reagan and Congress had to keep raising taxes,
while deleting a pivotal COBRA tax deduction.  Reagan still couldn't get the nation's
head above water.  A case in fact was that the former steel capitol of the world went
bust under Reagan.  The steel mills throughout Pittsburgh closed.  Reagan made the
United States weaker.  Ironically, during the Reagan years, which were said to be the
years of fiscal responsibility, the salaries of teachers rose.  There was no curtailing of
local government spending in that department.  Thus came the domino effect of Rea-
ganomics, in as far as concerned compensating for it. 

      Creating Jobs through Taxpayer Money Is Not Economic Recovery

Do you know one of the techniques that a politician uses to create jobs?  ANS:  Gov-
ernment and Military Spending.  It's the act of taking taxpayer money and throwing it
in programs that give the temporary appearance of national recovery.  This included
Reagan's elevated military spending.  It quickly got to the point, under Reagan, where
young adults were unable to find jobs.  So, many joined the armed forces, solely for
the sake of economic survival.  This resulted in the not-so-willful enlistees being tak-
en off the unemployment stats.  It was enlistment by duress.  In addition, bringing
back millions of lesser-paying jobs to the private sector does NOT constitute eco-
nomic recovery, especially when the money supply is being tightened, in order to
reduce inflation.

Lowering the Tax Rates of the Rich Resulted in Them Paying a Higher Share 

Now, the Reaganite theory is that lowering taxes will allow the rich to retain more
money for investment and job creation.  Here is the paradox:   In 1979, the top 1%
of all income earners paid an 18.3% share of the federal government's income tax
revenue.  By the Year 2006, the top 1% were paying a share of 39.1%, and this was
during the Bush tax cut years.  Let us remember that the Bush tax cut is of the same
order as the Reagan cuts.  The bottom line is that lowering the income tax rates of the
rich didn't free-up any appreciable investment dollars.  Economics is more involved
than the tax rates of the rich.

     Empowering the Very Communism He Was Said to Have Conquered

In 1986, Reagan opened the door to lopsided trading with a Maoist Dictatorship who
now owns over a trillion dollars worth of the U.S. Treasury Bonds and who also took
away millions of American jobs.  Reagan set into motion the selling-out of America to
the Atheist Communist Chinese Dictatorship, in the name of flag-waving, God-fearing
democracy ... Mr. Astrology did this.  The Hollywood Commando didn't defeat Com-
munism.  He arranged for Communism to defeat America.  He was no conqueror.  He
was a cowardly spendthrift chicken hawk, acting tough with the blood and money of

                  The Top Consideration for Today, Economically Speaking

Today, what has to be taken into account is that the post-war baby boom generation
is at or near retirement age.  This makes Reaganomics entirely obsolete, especially
if it involves tightening the money supply at the Federal Reserve level.  Baby boom
Americans expect to live off of interest-bearing instruments.  Well, in order to create
wealth, you have create something of value.  Grow something.  Manufacture some-
thing.  Weave something.   Mine something.   Paint something.  Write something.
Record something.  Gather something.  Pull a rabbit out of a hat, if need be.  Wealth
is NEVER created by shifting around the same units of paper money, bonds, com-
mercial paper that have been shifted in musical chairs games. 

The value of any currency ends up shifting its axis in any musical chairs game.  This
is the foundation of any unstable economy.  In fact, failed debenture bonds accompa-
nied the Great Depression.  (Debenture means that no material wealth backs-up the
issued bond.)  In as much, taking the manufacturing base out of America sabotaged
the baby boomers' retirement years.  In 2008, pensions were already evaporating.

Reagan gave the incentive for corporations to no longer manufacture in United States
territory.  Gingrich took the baton and ran the NAFTA route.  He might as well have
pushed the average American off a cliff.  It would have been no different.  This sui-
cide of America was done in the name of Reaganomics.

The goal of Reaganomic propaganda is to con you into thinking that you must let the
rich get richer and free the rich of any regulation which will hold them accountable
for destroying America's environment and pensions.  Yet, the rich already became
outrageously rich, while unemployment and gasoline prices rose.  This shows that
making the rich richer will only make you poorer.  They failed to create the needed
jobs.  After all, how many jobs are required to pass around a derivative written on
paper and in entered into a computer account?

It's demand and not the rich which creates jobs.  It's shoppers and NOT the wealthy
who create employment.  Very simply, if there is no one to buy the product, there
will be no employees hired to sell the product ... or even manufacture it.  The praise
of the Hollywood Commando Ronald Reagan is a con game, designed to let greed-
stricken Republicans run wild with the money supply, from overseas bank account
to shining overseas bank account.

The goals of Reagan Propagandists are to 1} prevent livable-wage laws from pre-
vailing,  2} to have no environmental protection laws, and  3} to be called to zero
legal accountability for their injustices, all the while possessing overseas tax hav-
ens.  Such a thing is known as deregulation.

The lack of common sense in the electorate is their strength.  The misinformation
of the electorate is their power.  An electorate who doesn't think and who only falls
for campaign bumper sticker slogans is their free ride  . . .  these leeches of sweat-
shop workers throughout the world.  In all of their bully pulpit praising of Reagan,
they have one fatal error that entirely negates their praise of the chicken hawk's
style of economics.  That is this:

George Bush Economics WAS Reaganomics, and it resulted in the worst economic
crisis since the Great Depression.  Therefore, Reaganomics already took America
to the brink of destruction, and it will do so again if it's made into the unchecked
law of the land.  In his second term, Reagan had to abandon Reaganomics.  Keep
that in mind.

February 5, 2019

Bill Clinton was the one who had fiscal surpluses. Reagan never did.

  Concerning the National Debt in Relation to Gross Domestic Product

      To Whom it May Concern:

1}  The national debt was NOT reduced to zero during the Clinton Administration.
      Rather, it rose approximately $1.6 trillion, from $4.1 trillion to $5.7 trillion.  In
      as much, Clinton did NOT erase the national debt, as certain people claimed.

2} Nor did the national debt decrease during the Clinton Years.  Instead, the rate
     of increase slowed-down as the Clinton years progressed.  What is significant
     about the national debt during the Clinton years is this:

Firstly, Clinton enjoyed budget surpluses from three out of his eight  in office,
and ...

The National Debt, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, dropped by 9%
during Clinton's last term.   It went from 65.4% of GDP to 56.4% of GDP.  If
Clinton didn't acquiesce to NAFTA, things would have been much better than
what resulted during his administration.  He sabotaged his own administration
and all of America, for the years to come.  None the less, Clinton did produce
a surplus in terms of the yearly (fiscal) budgets for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000.  The numbers respectively are $69, $77, and $46 billion, if you use the
accrual accounting method is coming to the conclusion.

The accrual method simply records expenses at the time the charge/debt occurs,
as opposed to when the expense is paid.   In accounting a charge/debt is known
as an account payable.  It's regarded as a liability ... a subtraction from wealth of
the company accruing the charge.

Recent Presidencies

In recent presidencies, the Carter administration started with a national debt that
was 35% of GDP and it ended at 32.5%.  Under Reagan, it went from Carter's
32.5% to 53.1%.   Thus comes more evidence that Reagan was NOT the model
of fiscal responsibility that Fox News and the Republican Party make him out to
be.  After all, the national debt ceiling limit was elevated 18 times under Reagan.

Under George Bush I, the national debt's percentage of GDP elevated from 53.1%
to 66.1%.   Under Bush II, it went from Clinton's 56.4% to 84.2%. 

The Post WWII & Vietnam War Presidencies

At the start of 1945, the national debt was 117% of GDP.   The war was still rag-
ing.   Then, in 1949, the national debt was reduced to 93% of GDP.   In 1953, it
was reduced to 71.4%.   Under Ike, it went from 71.4% to 55.2%.  Then, under
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter it went from 55.2% to 35.8%.  Thus,
Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes were responsible for significantly ele-
vating the national debt in relation to the GDP.   Under them collectively, the na-
tional debt rose 61.4 percentage points.  This illustrates that the Republican Party
is not the party of fiscal responsibility.  It's campaign platform has been a lie.

Obama walked aboard a sinking ship.  American economic history from 1945 to
1980 shows that there is hope.  However, if the Trade Balance Deficit doesn't end
now, then it will soon be over for the entity once known as the United States gov-
ernment, even if it decides to become Argentina the Second.  Keep in mind that,
during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the manufacturing base was in America, and
not in overseas sweatshops.   NAFTA, CAFTA, and any other pending AFTA
must be repealed immediately.   Foreign trade in itself is NOT the problem.  The
problem is trading with a protectionist dictatorship whose workers cannot afford
to buy American products in the same degree that Americans can afford to buy
the products of the protectionist dictatorship.   There must be fair exchange be-
tween trading nations.

The U.S. National Debt

To start, Concerning the Debt-to-GDP Ratio, the United States' National Debt
reach 99.25% of United States' Gross Domestic Product in 2011.

Under Jimmy Carter, the debt went to $1 trillion.
Under Ronald Reagan, it was tripled to $3 trillion.
Under George Bush Sr, it crawled to $4.18 trillion.
Under Bill NAFTA Clinton, it went to $5.72 trillion.
Under George Bush Jr, it skyrocketed to $10.62 trillion.
As of October 2014, under Barack Obama, it's $17.8 trillion.