You don’t have to watch more than eight minutes into this video to hear President Bill Clinton say that, in the last 52 years, the American economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. “So, what’s the score? Republicans 24 million; Democrats 42.” What’s a poor soul to do with this overwhelming fact? Does Democratic policy really foster the free market and the private sector? I think not.
It doesn’t take a degree in political science to know how these two parties view the growth of jobs in the private sector. One party (at least in its pure and historic form) favors lower taxation to allow private investing and growth. This might be termed a “natural” growth of private-sector jobs. The other party tends to work “with the government” to create jobs. That is, they create stimulus packages and the like to throw public money (YOUR money) at various industries in the private sector and *PRESTO* there are private-sector jobs! Jobs can be “created” all day long by taxing folks and putting that money back into the marketplace here and there (where ever is most, well, expedient). I can “create” a job for my kids by stealing my neighbor’s money and funding their lemonade stand. Anyone can see, however, that this policy just might be counter productive. It is certainly so in the long run.
President Clinton’s shell game is plain for anyone to see. I know… I know… he was so “full of facts” that everyone’s back voting for Obama again. The problem is that these “facts” are too often simply sleight-of-hand style political tricks. Folks who fall for them deserve what they get.
Turns out the facts aren’t as cut and dried as he implies anyway…
“Once the lagged effects of the economy in the six months leading into a year are taken into account,” Campbell concludes, “there are no significant differences in the records of Democratic and Republican presidents with respect to economic growth, unemployment, and income inequality.”
Alas, this sorry political season brings to mind the bitter observation of British historian E.P. Thompson:
“The foulest damage to our political life comes not from the ‘secrets’ which they hide from us, but from the little bits of half-truth and disinformation which they do tell us.”
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/05/bill-clintons-truthiness-democrats-creat
Tax cuts do not create jobs. If they did, more jobs would have been created during GWB’s term than Bubba’s. There might be other factors to our jobs record under Bubba, but the economy created more jobs under him than George W. Bush. That is an actual fact. Business do not use tax cuts to hire more workers, business will do anything they can to NOT hire more workers. That’s our job as business owners and investors, to be efficient and maximize PROFIT, not maximize the number of jobs created. If a company could make all the same money by hiring robots to build their products, they would, and they do. Trickle down economics has been disproven time and time again. To compare taxes to stealing from our neighbors, is like saying tax right offs that rich people take is like stealing from soldiers – total hyperbole and intellectually dishonest. Taxes are our shared sacrifice, and how, who, and what we taxe is an accurate indictation of what our values are as Americans – and they have NEVER been lower, especially on those in the higher brackets. Ever. Another fact.
Jonas, thanks for the comment. I appreciate your input. To compare taxation (esp. for the sake of wealth redistribution) to theft is neither hyperbolic nor intellectually dishonest. You may not like the comparison, but it cannot be denied: “I can vote for this candidate who will tax those other folks to give me stuff that I cannot afford.” Not ALL taxation is like this, but some certainly is. How is THAT not theft by means of the power of the state?
I quite agree that business is to generate profit not to “create” jobs. Political speak tends to focus on the latter. President Clinton certain spent a good deal of the first 10 mins focusing in on the “creation” of jobs.
As to taxes on the higher earners having NEVER been lower… that is simply NOT a fact, Jonas. This is the sort of thing that is exceedingly easy to get a hold of, but I suspect people like to make up the “facts” to fit their political/social/economic positions. You will see that your “fact” is soundly falsified when you look at the historic numbers for the federal income tax (coming up on a century now!). Take a look here.
Again, Jonas, I do appreciate the interaction. I’m sure that I have a great deal to learn from you. Politics and economics are not my strong suits. Blessings!
I took a look, Tim, and I guess I am not following. The top marginal tax rate was 91% in 1950 (over 400,000), and it is 39% today. Now if there is detail you are inferring, well then spit it out. This is the closest thing to a civil ideological discussion I have heard, and facts would be appreciated.
Equating taxes to stealing is silly and juvenile. I hope people don’t have to steal from you to protect you from real burglars, or make streets for you to get to work. Too many liberals would write off the whole conservative ideology with this kind of foolishness. There is a real case to be made for fiscal restraint, personal resposibility, and the innefficiencies of public instituions. This discussion is blacked out by birthers, the Tea Party crazies, and Grover Norquist (among others). Conservatism has really gone goofy since Bill Buckley died.
Mike, that post was written long enough ago, that I cannot remember what comment/assertion about the federal income tax rate you want details about… sorry. If you’ll be a little more specific, I will try to be clearer and substantiate my comments with more details.
As to equating taxation with theft, I don’t. I equate wealth redistribution via taxation with theft. I wrote about that here. Part of the reason that so many liberals might write off the whole conservative/libertarian ideal is that folks (like you!) persist in presenting a caricature of it. Taxation does not necessarily equal theft. Making my neighbor pay for something I want but cannot afford by taking his money via the threat of force from the gubment… yeah, that matches the definition. If THAT distinction be granted, then maybe we can move on to finer ones, which would likely be more interesting and edifying.
Tim,
Ol’ Bill’s speech was probably too full of details and just too long-winded to have that much of an impact. Sad really, with all of this fiscal disaster hanging over us, the Dems promised more programs and more stimulus during their convention. Let’s not forget that they don’t even know how to practice democracy when it comes to their own platform.
Neither party…
“Neither party” is savory. That fact the GOP is all excited about a polytheistic idolator, who’s “more serious” about religion than his opponent is odious. The GOP (for this and a number of other reasons) is, therefore, sickening. The Democratic Party is a hodgepodge of godless fringe groups vying for legitimacy and/or dominance. Distasteful as all this is, it is nothing new. Politics is coercion. Games of coercion will always draw the worst of men to play them. Again, nothing new. All that said, our participation in this sordid game must be first and foremost as Christians. How can we, as Christians, prop of an out-and-out heretic to be our leader?
Tim,
In answer, because there are two kingdoms?
“Neither party…”
Sounds like more moral equivalence to me. Well, if you can’t stand the process, no one is making you participate. For my part, I know that saying that both parties are exactly the same is simply mistaken. Yeah, neither meets our ideals (what in the this world does?) but at least one provides a forum for many of my policy views while the other provides nothing.
“Neither party” does not imply one cannot stand the process as their are options outside the main 2 parties. “Neither party” does not indicate that both parties are the same… only that neither party has the God revealed qualities of a leader as indicated in Scripture. God calls me and my family to vote Christ worshiper, Christ follower… both evidenced by what we can see with their lives and policies… followed by ability to lead… that is who I am voting for.
So there is a party that has the endorsement of Almighty God?
I don’t know… but there is a guideline to selecting our leaders in Scripture…
But Mark, I thought you were voting for someone who met all those fine qualifications you listed. Do you have a candidate in mind?
As for the guideline in Scripture, do tell!
Why the “but, Mark”? I am voting for someone who meets those requirements…
As for the guideline in Scripture… are you telling that you don’t know and need me to tell you? Or are you testing me? Either way, I know and can let you know, or with the advent of internet, I can look it up real quick and let you know. Why is it that you cannot discern that God calls us to pick leaders who fear the Lord?
Here are a few verses… when taken in the whole of Scripture… point us to vote for leaders who fear God as a first criteria… everything else is second…
1 Timothy 2:1-4: we should pray for our leaders…
Hosea 8:4: sometimes God is not pleased at our choices of leaders…
Proverbs 28:12: much of the suffering on earth is because of Godless leadership…
Acts 5:27-29: Romans 13:1-7: we are to obey legitimate leadership…
1 Samuel 12:13-25: we should strive to elect leaders who fear God…
Proverbs 14:34: righteousness exalts a nation…
Matthew 22:21: voting is a civic duty…
I would rather have a God fearing President with little or no experience… knowing that God will work in the details… than a President who has great policies that does not fear God. My faith is in that God will reward me for honoring Him with my vote and that He is sovereign and His will… will be done despite my vote.
Okay, so who are you voting for?
I’m voting for the one who best meets the criteria set forth in Scripture… instead of me telling you who that is… who would you vote for if your first and foremost criteria was that he be a Christian… in declaration and in fruit/character… followed by ability to lead and policy?
Mark,
Since we live in a Constitutional republic (at least for now) that has no established religion, the relation of faith to politics is inevitably complicated. In any case, I’m not just messing with you. Thanks for the input.
Also, since we are faced with only two alternatives as to who will rule next year, is it wrong to support the guy who is the fresh thing on the market?
2 alternatives? who are you kidding? and I am not messing with you either…
Hmmm… I’m beginning to wonder if you want to dodge the question. I’m looking at the ballot this way, Mark. I see that we have an incumbent who I’m convinced is a real dud. His philosophy is abysmal and his ability to lead is poor. The other guy, who I readily admit has lousy theology, seems much better equipt to uphold the Constitution and to encrouage economic recovery and fiscal responsibility. I sure wish I could vote for a guy is with me 100% on policy and theology. But I don’t see that kind of candidate around. That’s why I was asking you, maybe you knew of someone. But even if you did, he’d have no chance of being elected.
Your problem is that you cannot shake the 2 party mentality… it is because of this, a 3rd party is a difficult issue… but by no means impossible.
I am also concerned that a Christian such as yourself is placing so much faith in man… as evidenced by your laissez faire attitude regarding “lousy theology” and a bigger emphasis on his ability to uphold the constitution… it is much more than just a “lousy theology”… it leads millions to hell and will lead millions more, and the man-made American Constitution is fleeting and will eventually burn as well. Don’t confuse that with the idea that I don’t like our constitution… I do.
Also, I am not convinced that I ever will find a candidate who will agree with me 100% on theology and policy… but that is not the goal. The goal is to follow God’s plan as written in Scripture and to pray and follow His guidance in choosing our leaders.
If you believe God is leading you to vote for Romney… that is who you should vote for. But God does not lead me to vote for a man who does not fear Him, nor do I believe He puts policy above obedience.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/
Mark,
Your problem is that you cannot shake the 2 party mentality… it is because of this, a 3rd party is a difficult issue… but by no means impossible.
I think we’re dealing with more of a two party reality then a two party mentality. In fact, I find the term “third party” misleading in that there is no other party that can stand as peer to the Dems and the GOP. Alternative parties are pulling really lame percentages when if comes to the Presidential elections. They also haven’t really made a splash locally yet either. I think for a Christian to influence the process, he’ll have to vote for one of the two parties who are actually in the game.
Also if we ever get around to having more viable parties, we might also have to deal with more compromise. That is, because in order for the government to function legislatively, the more parties we have, the more likely coalitions will be necessary.
Also, I am not convinced that I ever will find a candidate who will agree with me 100% on theology and policy… but that is not the goal. The goal is to follow God’s plan as written in Scripture and to pray and follow His guidance in choosing our leaders.
Okay, so if complete agreement isn’t necessary, than that makes it even more complicated. Maybe then all one needs to worry about is, hey, here’s the viable options we have now. I may not like all of the person’s policies, but he ‘s moving in my direction. And when it comes to theology, I’m afraid you’re off base if you think I don’t understand that Mormonism is wrong. I do. Rather, I understand that I’m not voting for Romney to be an elder of my church. Participating in politics in itself is not a matter of endorsing theology. I’m voting in the election for President of the USA. As it is now, our temporal Constitution has no religious test for public office. Even if we did, that Constitution would also be temporal.
As you stated, we have to honor legitimate rulers on the basis of Romans 13. Paul was writing in the context of rule by Roman emperors. So Christians are supposed to be good citizens even under governments that aren’t themselves Christian. I think that makes it a matter of liberty how, with the privilege of voting, to influence a government containing unbelievers in the direction we think best. I agree that God wants us to honor him with our vote, but it doesn’t look like we can bind anyone’s conscience on how. So I appreciate your caveat:
If you believe God is leading you to vote for Romney… that is who you should vote for.
Brandon
You quite eloquently argued my point, Brandon… I don’t know if it was purposeful or if you believe you argued against my point.
There is no 3rd party which can stand as peer to Dem and Rep… which is what I put forth as well… this is because of the 3rd party mentality… not reality… the reality is because the mentality is.
And of course you aren’t voting for Romney to be an elder in your Church… but does Scripture call us to only vote for elders this way?
Your thinking quite baffles me on the subject of participating in politics is not theology… it actually is. My theology affects everything I do as a disciple of Christ. My worldview is a Christian worldview and I live in the world, not of it. My vote goes to that candidate which benefits the Kingdom of God.
Romans 13 calls us to honor/respect our leaders… like I honor Obama as President right now… but early Christians did not vote for their leaders, so your point is moot. We have the ability to select our leaders and God calls us to listen and obey Him on all things.
So apparently God is calling you to vote Romney, correct?
Mark,
Let’s not engage in sleight of hand now. I did not argue for your point, and in some ways you have barely argued for your point. I think you’ve been more at the level of confident assertion.
So, by setting aside this ambiguous and prejudicial construct of a “Third Party Mentality,” will you say on the basis of the Word that Christians may not participate in our political process as currently constructed? In other words, is it a sin to vote for one of the viable choices? If so, well, the burden of proof is with you, my friend.
That speaks to the question of whether I think God is calling me to vote for Romney… I don’t think that, not so much in those words. I think that God has left me free to vote for Romney, because I see him as the best viable candidate to govern according to the Constitution the next four years.
Let’s not engage in sleight of hand now. I did not argue for your point, and in some ways you have barely argued for your point. I think you’ve been more at the level of confident assertion.
So, by setting aside this ambiguous and prejudicial construct of a “Third Party Mentality,” will you say on the basis of the Word that Christians may not participate in our political process as currently constructed? In other words, is it a sin to vote for one of the viable choices? If so, well, the burden of proof is with you, my friend.
That speaks to the question of whether I think God is calling me to vote for Romney… I don’t think that, not so much in those words. I think that God has left me free to vote for Romney, because I see him as the best viable candidate to govern according to the Constitution the next four years.
Locirari,
Please quit trying to be smarter than you are by showing off your big words. My point does not need arguing simply because I am not arguing a point other than, “who is God calling you to vote for?” I don’t need to defend that, especially among Christians… one would think.
Your second paragraph is nonsensical. In the current system, how it is constructed, we are able to vote for a 3rd party… even a 4th and 5th etc… we are able to even write in candidates. And it would be a sin to vote for one of the “viable” choices if you are disobeying God. Do you believe disobedience is a sin? Since I have never stated that voting for Romney is a sin… but rather disobedience to God is, I don’t get the point you are trying to make other than you are trying to say things I have not stated. I have consistently asked if you have prayed about this and believe that God is compelling you to vote for Romney? If God is sovereign, surely His will comes in to play somewhere in this decision for you.
I guess saying that God has left you free to vote for whomever is a valid argument, but it seems more of a cop out to me… mostly because I don’t believe our Constitution has anything to do with who God wants for us. I do know that He desires obedience over how comfortable our lives are within our Constitution.
So, if I’m following you, there’s another candidate who is just as likely as Obama and Romney?
“no chance of being elected”… David had no chance of being King.
100% agreeance in theology and policy… nobody ever said that. God fearing as evidenced by character and fruit and statement… policy is second tier and has to agree on important issues or come awfully close.
Since I have never stated that voting for Romney is a sin…
Ok, good to know. I don’t think that God endorsed a candidate so it is up to each believer to use wisdom in voting. That’s all I wanted to point out. I think we agree, so farewell.
As long as you are in obedience to the Lord and not relying on man’s desires and false wisdom… cool. But as for me, the Lord is not compelling me to vote for a false prophet… glad we are on the same page.