I agree.

First of all, the President has no constitutional responsibility or authority to manage the US economy. I've looked hard, and it's not there.

Second, the President doesn't have that much ability to influence the economy for good. The President could do harm by doing something stupid, but he doesn't have that much ability to do good.

Finally, any influence the President has, for good or ill, is delayed. The impact of a President's actions may not been seen until after he has left office.

I wholeheartedly agree!!

Agree w the post, of course.

One quick note (probably not worth making but that rarely stopped me before :-) ): You wrote "When the economy stunk while George W. Bush was President my fellow conservatives did not blame Bush. They said it was market factors or an inheritance from Clinton's mistakes, etc."

It's an interesting comment to make. For most of Bush's term, the economy didn't stink. Even weathering the challenges of Enron, WorldCom and 911, the US Economy was cooking pretty good and unemployment was low. Bush did, however, spend like a drunken sailor, and debt and deficits were the norm.

Yes, people are unfair and hypocritical. But I read a good amount of criticism of Republican policies by conservatives during those years (much as there is plenty of liberal criticism of Obama to be found these days). I'm not sure how it was elsewhere, but many conservatives here in Texas were completely disgusted with Bush at the end of his term when everything went belly-up economy-wise and regretted voting for him.

For the most part, most people (me included) are horribly unfair about it, though. We're more ready to blame the "other guy" than we are the guy we voted for.

All that being said, I do think people of good faith can look at the current economy, and look at the decisions made near the end of Bush's term and throughout Obama's first term, and can have valid criticisms without being guilty of playing politics. Decisions matter - were the bailouts the right idea? Has the stimulus worked? Was the takeover of banks and car companies effectual? Is the President's economic plan a good one? Etc.

Of course, most of us (me included and perhaps most of all) have a hard time separating the cold hard facts from our visceral reaction to one political party and emotional attachment to another. It is, for many, a 'war game'. But there is some baby in that bathwater.

I think the best thing for me to do is to pray for the President and our other leaders, sincerely. And to do my civic duty and vote.

Amen!

I gave up belonging to a political party years ago because I was tired of being a part of a group that never accepted responsibility but always pointed fingers -- especially under identical conditions.

I agree with you ... I hate politics as it's practiced today.

I would mostly agree, but I would add a comment on how we got into this situation.

When this country was founded and for its first 150 years or so, most citizens didn't bother much about the federal government (with a few major exceptions such as slavery, Indian affairs, etc.). That was because the government was small, its revenues tiny, and its power severely limited by our courts historical and faithful reading of the Constitution.

Then came Woodrow Wilson and the imposition of income taxes, FDR and the New Deal along with court packing, LBJ and the Great Society, and an ongoing massive expansion of government programs, taxation, and regulation into nearly every facet of US life.

Here is the data. In 1925, US government spending was about 3% of GDP. Today it is approximately 33% of GDP, and regulation covers nearly all commerce. We have transformed in less than 100 years from a society where government is largely irrelevant to most peoples lives, to one where it often pervades. The average citizen can no longer largely ignore government. So while there may be silly finger pointing over things like gas prices, in many ways, what government does increasingly matters to peoples lives. In my opinion, that is the main reason why people have 'chosen sides' in their politics, even if it is sometimes over false or trivial issues.

We have become just like the Jews who traded their freedom for a king, and the Romans who traded a republic for a emperor. Unfortunately, it seems that bread and circuses and government promised (false) security tends to win over freedom over time. But once you have given up that freedom, it does matter to your life and the lives of your children whether you have a David or a Saul, a Marcus Aurelius or a Nero.

But yes, we always need to remember and be reminded - even so, come, Lord Jesus.

"I essentially agree. But for me personally the baby is just not that cute and I only want to hold it every now and then. :-)"

LOL!

Personally, a lot of the attack that I've seen stemming from the unemployment announcement has not been, "Look what Obama caused!" but, rather, "Look what Obama promised!"

Specifically, upon signing the stimulus, Obama promised that by the end of 2010, there would be 3.5 million jobs created or saved. Since he signed the stimulus, we've lost 2.8 million jobs. I suppose it's possible that we should have lost 6.1 million jobs over the past 10 months and the stimulus has worked better than expected. I also suppose that maybe we should wait until the end of 2010 before invoking condemnation upon our President to see if his promise comes to fruition. He gave himself a 22-month window, and we're not even halfway through it yet. I definitely think, however, that promising statistics that can't be measured (jobs saved?) is disingenuous, at best.

You're right - the facebook comments were probably less than appropriate and needed far more context if any of them were meant in a non-political way. But it isn't wrong to hold politicians' feet to the fire based on seemingly failed promises/rationale for imposing a vast amount of debt upon our citizenry (not that you're necessarily arguing this - I'm just going off of what I have seen in commentary reacting to the economic announcement).

I don't know what will happen in the next 12 months. I REALLY hope that the 3.5 mill that Obama promised materializes. My wife and half the members of my church small grouo would love that. I just don't think they will :(

A good question might be to ask these people if the economy turns around over the next twelve months, who would get the credit. It won't be Republican lawmakers (they're practically powerless). If anything goes well in the next year, these haters are going to have to eat crow. My guess is that they'll run and hide or try and convince themselves that things couldn't truly be turning around. I think it just comes down to blunt honesty in our government and in our reactions. I don't think it's too much to ask.


Having said all of this, I, too, long for the day when none of this matters any more and we're all spending our time praising our King instead of ourselves, our candidates or our silly political soapbox issues. To this core spirit of your post, I say Amen.

As sure as gravity, as sure as a dropped dish will fall and break, violating God's commands will bring results.

It is to this issue that the church should speak.

Assuming we're still talking about the economy, which of God's commands has President Obama violated?

With trepidation . . .

"But if we'd just get some God-fearing Republicans in the White House, God would love American again. :-)"

I won't defend everything Roy said, but I'm pretty sure he pronounced a pox on BOTH repubs and dems. So he's pretty much in the same no baby, no bath mode as you are, granted, from a different angle.

Btw, this is another reason I hate politics. B/c I can't even hate it without offending/perplexing others. :-(

"Btw, this is another reason I hate politics. B/c I can't even hate it without offending/perplexing others. :-("

Sorry.

I feel the same way whenever I try to express myself on the whole "better" debate :-)

But, seriously - I know I'm a source of some of the frustration here. I'm sorry.

OK, so I wasn't frustrating you before?

But NOW I am! Sorry!

That means to the extent that China is "actually" prospering (quote marks because I think what's being called prosperity open for discussion), that prosperity follows from how closely China's people act in accord with what God says about the way things ought to be.

Disagree.

But I've said my piece. Or is it "peace"?
Either way, I've said it. :-)

Wickle demurred:
1) "Obamacare" has nothing to do with gods. There is vast idolatry in politics, but I just can't see where you're trying to go with that one.

Recall that I noted I painted with broad brush strokes. Because of that, I understand that some might not immediately connect the dots. I'll supply a few more strokes with a smaller brush, provide a few more dots. But you'll have to tell me whether you can see the dots. With that in mind:

Do you deny that Obamcare follows a pattern of thinking that says government can provide womb to tomb security? Oops. Need to rephrase that. Although US gov't currently supports unwed mothers, it's also among the largest providers of money for abortions. So maybe instead of womb to tomb think of cradle to grave. What do you think? Can you see this Dot1?

2) Taxation is not stealing. It might be bad policy, but it's simply not theft. Even Jesus said to pay your taxes. That was under a system far more oppressive than anyone could possibly imagine that the US is.

You've assumed I meant something I did not write. Taxation per se is not stealing. But do think that biblically defensible truth grants a blank check to gov't? Dot2. Do you see that granting a blank check to gov't makes it god? Dot3. If you think that some limitations on that check exist, by what standard do we decide those limitations? Dot4.

In this context, consider your assertion that Jesus suffered a system "far more oppressive...than the U.S. is". Do you think that perhaps Rome made a tactical error in persecution by lions rather than by taxes? Granted that today's industrial productivity allows significantly greater taxation than did the agrarian economy of 2000 yrs ago. It is, after all, this difference which enables today's governments to have such an immensely larger ratio of employees compared to those working to support government. Rome, for example, simply could not have taxed enough to afford the alphabet agencies of the U.S. government. But it could have taxed more and killed less. Do you see this Dot5? Is there some percentage beyond which government may not tax? Dot 6.(Obviously, at least I hope it is, there exists a percentage beyond which government can not tax.)

I ask, simply, what a dollar is and who made it.

Jesus replied, simply "Render unto caesar what is caesars". Do you see the Dot7, that some things do NOT belong to caesar no matter what caesar says? that caesar may not ask for that which is God's? Think about the implications of that dot for those who are not merely subjects of caesar, but by virtue of citizenship also caesars.

Andrew, for your 1 and 2, see my interaction with Wickle in 27.

Regarding 3,I wrote:
No murder. (Ponder for, say, 30 seconds what obamacare will bring to the debates about murdering unborn kids and murdering older people.)

Andrew replied:
Why 30 seconds? I'll agree with you that abortion is murder, and Obama's support of it is wrong.

30 seconds because I expected your reflexive (and correct) answer.

I assume you already agree that obamacare as passed before Christmas (irony meter pegs) and unless revised will greatly increase gov't payments for abortions.

I still haven't seen a single shred of good evidence that supports the idea that Obama wants to murder my grandparents, but I won't get into that now.

But you have. I don't think I make the "either or" error in observing that somebody will limit what the government health care will pay for. Do you not agree?

Plug into that conundrum the mixer upper of the not too many years away collision of Roe and OASDI. Who will provide all the social security to be collected by retiring seniors? Move from this ponzi scheme (which warrants prison if practiced by other than government) to the ponzi scheme of government health plans. One does not have to have a fine grasp of actuarial details to discern the choices and corresponding pressures that will develop.

Even so, I don't think the current recession is God's judgment on America for aborting babies, just as I don't think periods of immense economic growth are God's way of rewarding us for legalizing abortion.

In partial agreement with that quibble, I observed in my original comment in 21 that we face limitations in making direct correlation conclusions. But I hope you'd join me in denying that no correlation exists at all. Think of what Mr Beaver said to the kids in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". "He's not a tame lion." Mess with God, you're gonna run into problems. Big groups of people getting together don't make them able to avoid the problems.

If we go through a period of recovery during the next 3 years (or 7 years), someone could just as easily say it was God rewarding us for passing a healthcare bill.

I'm gonna walk out on that limb and hand you the saw. I don't expect recovery apart from at least some significant modifications of current plans. I don't know why nor how long God tolerates pharohs, assyrian kings, Stalins, my own sin. But I don't think it wise to bet against him. Recovery may demand repentance, especially by the church.

@Roy: I suppose I should have said we can hardly blame just the president, which is where I think Jared was going. I definitely don't think the government has zero control over the economy, but not as much as its critics like to ascribe to it.

Manders,
I completely agree with you that lots besides POTUS, even lots besides POTUS and the Legislature, even lots besides all three gov't branches and all attendent beauracracy, effect the economy. I grant, too, that one may surely admit it very difficult if not impossible to specify how great the effect of any of the three or combination of the three branches is.

But the last two yrs (ie, including Bush) ought make converts of anyone who took the position that these branches have singly (and especially in combination) no or little or negligible effect.