Congress creates or solves the economic mess, not the President

Unemployment It is a pervasive myth that the President is the one who kills or saves the economy, but in reality, the President can only set a tone and direction through his proposals, as well as what he may approve or veto.

It is the Congress that creates the bills and determines the spending.  In fact, the Congress can totally ignore the President if they have a super majority, and in times when the Congressional majority is from the opposing party of the President, they often do.  The American thinker has a great article entitled Whose Mess?, in which they use unemployment numbers to show that the economy ALWAYS worsens under Democratic congresses.  Why?  Because liberal economics do not work. Overtaxing the successful is the failed model of pseudo-socialism, not free-market capitalism.

The graph above speaks for itself – see the pattern?  Every time a DEM Senate takes over (blue), unemployment goes up.  When a GOP Senate is in session (red), it goes down.  Maybe you read this differently – I mean, in 1993, it did begin to go down, but that's probably because of Bill Clinton approving NAFTA, which the majority of the DEMs voted AGAINST.  So again, the only successful reduction of unemployment during a Democratic Congress may have been due to the minority GOP. 

Something to think about.

This article has 6 comments

  1. In fairness, I would allow that the numbers don't mean precisely that…
    So much of economic outcome is based on perception of the econonmy (there's a great high level discussion on economics and Christianity on Scot McKnight's blog, Jesus Creed, right now).
    I think at a minimum, we could say that business owners or those that are in charge of business forcasting as it relates to staffing decisions have a negative perception of Democratic policy and how it will affect their business.
    Ultimately the result is the same.

  2. The sub-heading of this blog describes it as "Christian commentary on religion, politics, world views, books, church life, and culture." Since when is "Christian commentary" exclusively Republican? To be strictly honest, you should rename this blog something along the lines of "Christianity as a Republican Faith."

  3. >> LOUIS: Since when is "Christian commentary" exclusively Republican?
    I am a conservative, which I think is most consistent with a Biblical World view. As long as Republicans are in line with that, I'd call it Christian.
    As I've posted before, I think that a free market, as well as our current form of government, are very consistent with biblical principles – although you might argue that a benevolent monarchy is also consistent.

  4. btw: This is why I call you guys christianist: your beliefs are basically political. For you, there is little difference between the spiritual and the political – one is intertwined with the other. From your statement above, it's clear that you consider the Republican party to be "consistent with a Biblical World view," and you find your political principles "consistent" with biblical principles. You are a fine example of what is wrong with the Republican party: hijacked by Christianist fundamentalists intent on imposing their theocratic views on the country. Scary.

  5. "it's clear that you consider the Republican party to be "consistent with a Biblical World view," "
    I completely disagree with that. Too broad a brush, yet again Louis. Never seen me, or others you're attempting to paint for that matter, be quite hard on the Republican party?
    "imposing their theocratic views on the country"
    You must be able to quote at least ONE important Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, or Christian leader who is advocating theocracy, right? I mean, to make a statement like that, there's got to be at least ONE. Right?
    Of course the very very silly thing about what you're ranting against, is that someone has beliefs that they consider consistent with their political outlook. Aren't your beliefs consistent with your political outlook? Isn't the fundamental idea of a democracy (which we're not, but the idea holds), that people vote their conscience? Are you proposing that we should have some sort of religious test in order to vote?
    And then sillier yet… funny how you really really REALLY didn't want to address the telling and fact based chart of the original post. :p