Jennifer Kabbany describes what young people got from their vote for Democrats over at the College Fix.
Young America’s Foundation released its annual “Youth Misery Index” findings today, and the news is not good for young people – the index has hit an all-time record high.
The foundation calculates the index by adding youth unemployment, student loan debt, and national debt (per capita) figures, and it found “young people are experiencing hardships like never before under the Obama administration, and this generation is especially suffering the consequences of this administration’s leftist policies.”
For 2014, youth unemployment sat at 18.1 percent, student loan debt came in at $30,000, and national debt per capita was the highest ever at $58,437. The foundation tallied that all up for a Youth Misery Index of 106.5. That’s far above the 2013 figure of 98.6, when the foundation added 16.3, which represented youth unemployment, with 29.4 – the average 4-year college loan debt – and 52.9, each person’s national debt burden.
“The government is largely responsible for all three problems, and we’ve found a statistically significant relationship between government expenditures and the Youth Misery Index,” the foundation states. “Each indicator can be tied to government actions.”
While the index has steadily grown over the decades, under Obama the figure has shot up dramatically.
In 2012 it was 95.1, and the year before that 90.6. When Obama first took office in 2009, it was 83.5. When President George Bush left office in 2008 – the index was 69.3. When the figure debuted in 1993, it came in at 53.1.
“Young people will be stuck paying for government debt they had no part in creating, and they’ll have to do it with less discretionary income than ever before because of record high levels of student loan debt,” the foundation stated.
If interest rates go up, it will get even worse. Interest on loans will make it harder for them to buy houses and cars. Their students loans will cost more. And the government will have to dedicate a lot more money to making payments on the national debt – leaving less money for other expenditures. Taxes might have to go up to pay for the payments on the debt. Whether they raised income, sales or property taxes, it’s bad news for young people trying to get on with their lives.
Dina tweeted this UK Daily Mail article that made me think about how women vote.
More than a third of working mothers would like to give up their jobs completely and stay at home with their children, a major Government survey has found.
It showed that millions of mothers of young children who go out to work do so only because they need to work to pay the bills.
The research for the Department for Education found that, far from being anxious to get out of their homes and into employment, the great majority of mothers are only reluctant workers.
Nearly six out of ten of all working mothers would cut down their hours to spend more time with their families if they could afford to, it said.
The yearning among mothers to leave their jobs and look after their children instead is even more pronounced among the highest achieving women, the survey indicated.
More than two-thirds of those in senior and middle management roles would spend fewer hours in the office and devote more time to their children if they had enough money, it said.
[…]Yesterday’s survey also undermines the claims that prejudice and discrimination against women in male-dominated companies is the reason why women are heavily outnumbered in the boardroom.
Rather, it suggests that many women who could get to the top in business choose instead to put their children before their careers.
The problem is that when government gives people free stuff, people who work have to work more to pay for it. And the strangest thing is that even though women seem to want to stay home with their kids (which is good), when it comes time to vote, they actually vote NOT to stay home with their kids. How? By growing the size of government, which results in higher taxes. To find out what women really think about staying home with their kids, we can look at how they vote.
According to CNN’s exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. That level of female support for the president made an especially big impact in swing states like Ohio where the gender breakdown mirrored the national figures.
[…]There are some indications that social issues directly impacting women might have helped sway votes in some states.
Tuesday’s early exit polls showed 51% of Missouri voters said they believed abortion should be legal all or most of the time. Of those voters, exit polls showed 76% supported Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill, who won Tuesday night, while 19% voted for Akin.
Forty-seven percent of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be illegal. Exit polls showed Akin netted 67% of this group’s votes while 27% of people who think abortion should be illegal supported McCaskill.
But much more than social issues, pocketbook economic issues most concerned women voters, exit polling showed.
“Women like all voters felt the economics were most important,” Swers said. “Women tend to be more supportive of government spending… than men are … so they were less responsive to Romney in that way and more responsive to Obama’s message on empathy and helping the middle class.”
Gallup reported that the gender gap in the 2012 election was actually 20 points. That was the largest ever measured in a Presidential election. The actual vote for Obama among women, according to Gallup, was 56-44.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross‐sectional time‐series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
When people vote for government to do more for everyone else, then men who work have to pay more in taxes.
If women want to stay home with their children more, then they need to vote for their husbands (present or future) to pay less in taxes when they work. That means voting for smaller government, more liberty and more personal responsibility. Until women get to the point of connecting their future plans (marriage and parenting) for their lives with their current voting, this situation is not going to change. Marriages run on money. It’s no good to urge men to “man-up” and then take away their ability to provide by taxing more of their earnings to pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control pills and abortions. Keep the money in the family, and then you can stay home with the kids more.
J. Warner Wallace tweeted this must-read post about a series of 10 posts by New Testament expert Mike Krueger.
Here’s the list of 10 facts:
Mike Kruger, author of Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Crossway, 2012) and the forthcoming The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (IVP, 2013), has a helpful series on the New Testament canon, linked below, “designed to help Christians understand ten basic facts about its origins. This series is designed for a lay-level audience and hopefully could prove helpful in a conversation one might have with a skeptical friend.”
Here are the posts:
“The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess”
“Apocryphal Writings Are All Written in the Second Century or Later”
“The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books”
“Some NT Writers Quote Other NT Writers as Scripture”
“The Four Gospels are Well Established by the End of the Second Century”
“At the End of the Second Century, the Muratorian Fragment lists 22 of Our 27 NT Books”
“Early Christians Often Used Non-Canonical Writings”
“The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council”
“Christians Did Disagree about the Canonicity of Some NT Books”
“Early Christians Believed that Canonical Books Were Self-Authenticating”
Here is one from the list that I did not know before. (#4)
For Christians struggling to understand the development of the New Testament canon, one of the most confusing (and perhaps concerning) facts is that early Christian writers often cited from and used non-canonical writings. In other words, early Christians did not just use books from our current New Testament, but also read books like the Shepherd of Hermas, theGospel of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas.
Usually Christians discover this fact as they read a book or article that is highly critical of the New Testament canon, and this fact is used as a reason to think that our New Testament writings are nothing special. The literary preferences of the earliest Christians were wide open, we are told. Or, as one critic put it, early Christians read a “boundless, living mass of heterogenous” texts.
Because this fact is used to criticize the integrity of the New Testament canon, then all Christians should be keen to learn it. While the fact itself is true—early Christians did read and use many writings not in the canon—the conclusions often drawn from this fact are often not.
When scholars mention the Christian use of non-canonical writings, two facts are often left out:
1. The manner of citation. It is important to note that while Christians often cited and used non-canonical literature, they only rarely cited them as Scripture. For the most part, Christians were simply using these books as helpful, illuminating, or edifying writings. This is not all that different than practices in our modern day. A preacher may quote from CS Lewis in a sermon, but that does not mean he puts Lewis’s authority on par with Scripture itself.
A good example of this phenomenon is the use of the Gospel of Peter by the church at Rhossus at the end of the second century. Scholars often appeal to this story as evidence that early Christians had no established gospel canon. However, there is no evidence that the church there used the book as Scripture.
When we ask the question about which books early Christians cited most often as Scripture, then the answer is overwhelmingly in favor of the books that eventually made it into the New Testament canon.
2. Frequency of citation. Another often overlooked factor is the relative degree of frequency between citations of New Testament books and citations of non-canonical books. For example, scholars often appeal to Clement of Alexandria as the standard example of an early Christian that used non-canonical literature equally with canonical literature. But, when it comes to frequency of citation, this is far from true.
J.A. Brooks, for instance, has observed that Clement cites the canonical books “about sixteen times more often than apocryphal and patristic writings.” When it comes to gospels, the evidence is even better. Clement cites apocryphal gospels only 16 times, whereas, he cites just the gospel of Matthew 757 times.
In sum, Christians need to memorize this simple fact about the New Testament canon: early Christians used many other books besides those that made it into our Bibles. But, this should not surprise us. For, indeed, we still do the very same thing today even though we have a New Testament that has been settled for over 1600 years.
How many of these did you not know? Check them out!
Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”
[…]The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
If there was one thing that conservatives made clear on our blogs over and over again, it’s that Obama could only get $80 billion a year by restoring the Clinton-era tax rates on people who earn over $250,000 per year. All the conservative bloggers knew that we had run up over $5 trillion in deficits during Obama’s first term, and that a few billion wouldn’t put a dent in it. You have to wonder how these liberals are informing themselves before voting. Do they pay attention to actual numbers, or is it all just emotional for them? Everyone knows that the Democrat Party is the party of higher taxes, and everyone should have known that they would never be able to pay for all of their spending by taxing only the top earners.
UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi, who would like to get rid of the debt ceiling completely, has now called for more taxes in future fiscal cliff deals. Surprise, surprise – this is the only way that they can pay for the trillions in spending.
If you haven’t voted yet, please go vote! There is still time, especially in central, mountain and western time zones. If you have voted already, here’s a nice article to reward you while we wait for the election results. And thank you for voting!
Early voting in Cuyahoga County ended as of 2pm on Monday and turnout numbers have already been sent to county parties throughout the state. Although Cuyahoga County will go the president’s way, just by pure party registrations, early and absentee voting numbers coming from the Cuyahoga County Republican Party should cause Democrats state wide and nationally to be concerned in terms of GOP enthusiasm in Democratic strongholds.
“What we have seen, as of this morning, early voting [in Cuyahoga County] shows an additional 17,000 Republicans over what we saw in 2008 and the number of Democrats voting provisionally is less than what it was in 2008, so the net is about a 30,000 vote swing,” said Doug Magill, Cuyahoga County Republican Party spokesman, on Monday evening.
Essentially, according to Mr. Magill, Republicans were outnumbered in Cuyahoga in early voting in 2008 4.1 to 1. In 2012 Republicans are only outnumbered 2.7 to 1 in early and absentee voting in the heavy Democratic County. “In Cuyahoga County that’s significant,” he said.
Here are some numbers Mr. Magill cited to think about:
In 2008 Obama received 72 percent of the absentee and early voting in Cuyahoga County for a total of 187,000 votes. McCain received 28 percent of the 2008 Cuyahoga County absentee and early voting. In 2012, absentee and early voting now is 128,000 Democrats versus 145,000 from 2008.
However, 47,000 Republicans turned out to vote early or absentee this year in Cuyahoga as opposed to the 2008 GOP turnout in the county, which was 34,000. “So that’s the swing–17,000 plus about 13,000. Actually, it’s about 30,000 and independents are down from 2008,” Magill said.
What the total means is that Democrats are at 55% of their absentee and early voting in Cuyahoga County than what they were in 2008.
Much of the world is going to be as surprised as the Democrats that Romney has won this election in a landslide, but this is what all of the preliminary numbers show. There is a huge advantage in voter enthusiasm for the Republicans this year. If you haven’t yet voted, go now and vote!