The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[rightwinger]

You're talking in circles. The bolded portion is what's in question. Some people think the general welfare clause is a wildcard, an "anything goes" power that lets government dictate everything we do, as long as, you know, it's "for your own good".

Article 1, Section 1 provides Congress the authority to pass laws.

Congress does what needs doing (unless you are talking about this congress)

I believe Congress can only pass laws under certain conditions.
When Congress passes a bill it is sent to the president to be signed into law. If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.

Exactly..

Checks and balances protect the general welfare of we the people

 

[ron4342]

AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant....

I appreciate your candor about the implications of your views, if nothing else.

As a matter af practicality, Ron is right. However, I don't beleive that's how the founders intended it to be.

Obamacare is the law, upheld by the Supreme Court. Those in power have the ability to spit in the face of our founding fathers that wrote the constitution. This includes the republicans when they are in power also.

Bob, I agree with you. I do not think the founder's could envision a close minded House of Representatives like we have today. If they had been able to see such a thing I am sure they would have worked to ensure some check/balance to protect the nation.
If you have read how the Constitution was written then you would be aware that it involved compromise. In fact, the whole Constitution was basically a collection of compromises. I do not think they could for see a party that would be so desperate for power they would completely abandon compromise. I have no doubt they would be shocked and disgusted by the republican party of today. Gosh, wouldn't you love to see Jefferson or Franklin discussing the fate of the union with Rand Paul. I'd pay BIG BUCKS to see that!!!!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

Fallacy.

Some people still struggle with our Constitution

 

[ron4342]

Typical!!! What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept. The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist! You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it. It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant. (I love it by the way: Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government. The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled.
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare. They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc. They could not see into the future. By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare. Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA. Eisenhower did it by the freeway system. And on, and on, and on. Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way. If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing. I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.

So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really? You must have failed any civics course you ever took. Oh, wait. They dont teach that in schools anymore. No wonder.

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

They can choose to provide OR NOT to provide as they see fit. The "general welfare" is not defined in the Constitution. Even today, sadly, not everyone sees general welfare the same. The Democrats believe that you are promoting the general welfare when you are feeding people who cannot feed themselves. The republicans believe otherwise. In fact, the republicans pretty much tend to ignore the phrase "promote the general welfare." To them it is socialism. Better the people starve in the streets to avoid being socialists

 

[JimH52]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Yes, and everyone knows it was W that drove the economy to the edge of disaster. He walked away and propped his feet up on his front porch rails...

 

[The Rabbi]

So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?

Fallacy.

Some people still struggle with our Constitution

You are certainly among those. I appreciate your admission of gross ignorance.

 

[The Rabbi]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Yes, and everyone knows it was W that drove the economy to the edge of disaster. He walked away and propped his feet up on his front porch rails...

Everyone with a maximum of two brain cells. That would include you.

 

[Indeependent]

Article 1, Section 1 provides Congress the authority to pass laws.

Congress does what needs doing (unless you are talking about this congress)

I believe Congress can only pass laws under certain conditions.
When Congress passes a bill it is sent to the president to be signed into law. If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.

Your knowledge of the consitutional process is a piece with everything else.
Article I Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

You used Cut & Paste to repeat what RightWinger summarized already.

Go ahead, insult for pointing out what you just did.
And have some Geritol.

 

[ron4342]

Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare. That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.

Oh, but it does! Under the right conditions the government can do ANYTHING it wants to. All you need is one party to control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. Under those conditions the government can make any law or rule it wishes. For example, if they wished to strictly adhere to the Constitution they could close the Interstate System, the FAA, the FDA, the National Park System, the FCC, the Dept of Education, NASA, NORAD, INS, and on and on and on. Not one of those programs or departments is listed in the Constitution. Not one!!!!! The government could take this country back to September 17, 1787 if they so wished.

And you wonder why people are opposed to your views? Do you realize how utterly fascist they are?

No. And as a matter of fact, people are not opposed to my views. Now, I am merely pointing out what could occur under the right conditions. I am not advocating for it to happen.
What I want to see is an intelligent, fully functioning Democratic Party and an intelligent fully functioning republican Party working for a better America. In the past when a problem arose the Democrats would sit down and write a bill to solve the problem. The republicans would also sit down a write a bill to solve the problem. After neither bill passed both parties would sit down and hammer out a third bill which was a compromise of the first two bills. The Democrats would give up some of the things they wanted. The republicans would give up some of the things they wanted and the final bill would be a better bill than either the Democrats or republicans proposed.That is what you once had in this country. COMPROMISE. A willingness to work for the common good of this nation. We do not have this today thanks to the tea party and the ultra right gaining control of the republican party. If any republican politician dares to use the word COMPROMISE the tea party and the ultra right immediately try to rip out his throat and "primary" them. Consider Texas senator John Cornyn (R). According to a group that tracks such things he votes the conservative party line 98% of the time. However, recently he committed the ultimate sin of agreeing with a compromise position. IMMEDIATELY, the tea party and the ultra right grabbed a candidate even farther right than Cornyn to run against Cornyn in the primary. What we are speaking to here is a party gone MAD!!!! What we are speaking to here is a party destroying itself. What we are speaking to here is a party that puts itself over country. Being against that is not fascist.

 

[The Rabbi]

I believe Congress can only pass laws under certain conditions.
When Congress passes a bill it is sent to the president to be signed into law. If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.

Your knowledge of the consitutional process is a piece with everything else.
Article I Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

You used Cut & Paste to repeat what RightWinger summarized already.

Go ahead, insult for pointing out what you just did.
And have some Geritol.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's Zmas night and maybe you ate a heavy meal.
Read the paragraph I quoted again. Then read what Nutsucker wrote. Then tell me precisely why I quoted this and what was wrong with what he wrote.
Go!

 

[dblack]

Oh, but it does! Under the right conditions the government can do ANYTHING it wants to. All you need is one party to control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal. Under those conditions the government can make any law or rule it wishes. For example, if they wished to strictly adhere to the Constitution they could close the Interstate System, the FAA, the FDA, the National Park System, the FCC, the Dept of Education, NASA, NORAD, INS, and on and on and on. Not one of those programs or departments is listed in the Constitution. Not one!!!!! The government could take this country back to September 17, 1787 if they so wished.

And you wonder why people are opposed to your views? Do you realize how utterly fascist they are?

No. And as a matter of fact, people are not opposed to my views.

Heh...well, I'm here to tell you otherwise. I know of several personally.

... Now, I am merely pointing out what could occur under the right conditions. I am not advocating for it to happen.
What I want to see is an intelligent, fully functioning Democratic Party and an intelligent fully functioning republican Party working for a better America. In the past when a problem arose the Democrats would sit down and write a bill to solve the problem. The republicans would also sit down a write a bill to solve the problem.

Intelligent would be awesome. I'd like to see both parties muster enough intelligence to recognize that not every problem we face as a society is a government problem, and that most of them, in fact, are actually better dealt with through voluntary cooperation rather than coercive state mandates.

We do not have this today thanks to the tea party and the ultra right gaining control of the republican party.

There's much about the current incarnation of the Tea Party I take issue with. But their stubbornness on matters of what DC calls "compromise" isn't one of them. We have to say "no" to the crony capitalism that is the status quo in DC. The Tea Party is one of the few political groups taking a stand on matters of principle, however clumsy and imperfect it might be.

What we are speaking to here is a party that puts itself over country. Being against that is not fascist.

Opposing the Tea Party isn't what I see as fascist about your views. What I see as fascist is the primacy of the nation-state as the be-all, end-all of our society. I refuse to grant government unlimited power over our lives. It should have narrowly scoped purpose and limited means, and it should answer to the people, not the other way around.

 

[Indeependent]

Your knowledge of the consitutional process is a piece with everything else.
Article I Section 7

You used Cut & Paste to repeat what RightWinger summarized already.

Go ahead, insult for pointing out what you just did.
And have some Geritol.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's Zmas night and maybe you ate a heavy meal.
Read the paragraph I quoted again. Then read what Nutsucker wrote. Then tell me precisely why I quoted this and what was wrong with what he wrote.
Go!

I read it three times and you should read what RightWinger wrote even ONCE.
He presented what happens in REALITY and you tried, as usual, to nuance him into the "You're wrong!" corner using a Copy & Paste.
Yes, he skipped ONE TINY step that he posted from his BRAIN, to HIS credit, and you ran for Wikipedia because the administrative process involves active thought.

The bottom line is...
What RW said is correct.

 

[U2Edge]

What does average have to do with anything?

Bush was given a thriving economy and 4% unemployment....he left a near depression and over 8% unemployment

Losing 770000 jobs a month is not something to brag about

Because the average accounts for EVERY MONTH THE PRESIDENT was in office, in this case 96 months! Your figure only looks at TWO MONTHS. Mine looks at all 96 months.

Is it more accurate to rate a President on two months of work rather than 96? I think not.

Yes, the unemployment rate was low when Bush entered office. But it went up, there was a recession. The unemployment rate went all the way to 6.3% in 2003. Bush brought it back down to 4.4% by 2006. It was still at 4.9% in February 2008, only a few months before Bush left office.

But you see, you miss all that when you only look at the first month and the last month of a Presidency. Guess what, there are 94 other months that have to be looked in order to accurately rate the President.

Students grades are not based on the first week of the semester and the last week of the semester. Employees job performance is not based on the first week of work and the last week of work. Everything in between counts!

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

So I suppose you would like to be judged only by your first day on the job and the last day, right? To hell with the 10, 20, 30, or 40 years in between those days, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

You used Cut & Paste to repeat what RightWinger summarized already.

Go ahead, insult for pointing out what you just did.
And have some Geritol.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's Zmas night and maybe you ate a heavy meal.
Read the paragraph I quoted again. Then read what Nutsucker wrote. Then tell me precisely why I quoted this and what was wrong with what he wrote.
Go!

I read it three times and you should read what RightWinger wrote even ONCE.
He presented what happens in REALITY and you tried, as usual, to nuance him into the "You're wrong!" corner using a Copy & Paste.
Yes, he skipped ONE TINY step that he posted from his BRAIN, to HIS credit, and you ran for Wikipedia because the administrative process involves active thought.

The bottom line is...
What RW said is correct.

OK, I tried, really.
For starters it was Ron, not Nutsucker.
Second, what he wrote was:

If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.

Note the words in bold: The only way.
Now see where I quoted from the Constitution:

If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it,

Because you'e proven yourself a complete moron, and I mean a total incompetent clown, I'll spell out that there are two ways, not one way, that a bill becomes law.
1) The president signs it.
2) The president does not send it back to Congress and takes no action.
SO there are two ways, not one way. "The only way" indicates one way. Which is wrong.
So you've committed three errors here:
1) You attributed the statement to Nutsucker, not Ron
2) You failed to heed my advice and read over the post carefully
3) You failed to understand the difference between "the only way" and the two actual ways the Constitution lays out.

This is why I know you have low normal intelligence. You cannot read and understand a simple paragraph or the simple meaning of words. They all mean pretty much the same thing to you. No attention to detail. This is why your screen name is misspelled.

 

[U2Edge]

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

The economy is not a game, nimrod. If you have 4% unemployment the last year, and 15% unemployment every other year, you haven't won the "game." That means you had long 8 years of untold misery and suffering.

If you were given 15% unemployment and leave with 4% unemployment, you have won the "game"

But you see, its the average person on the street that is actually in the game. In the 8 years it takes to get to 4%, he may have lost his house, cars, family, and maybe even his own life. Is that winning?

Again, its about what the the person struggles with all those months and years. That's what ages people. Spiking the ball for a touchdown in the final two minutes does not change or erase what came before.

 

[rightwinger]

Because the average accounts for EVERY MONTH THE PRESIDENT was in office, in this case 96 months! Your figure only looks at TWO MONTHS. Mine looks at all 96 months.

Is it more accurate to rate a President on two months of work rather than 96? I think not.

Yes, the unemployment rate was low when Bush entered office. But it went up, there was a recession. The unemployment rate went all the way to 6.3% in 2003. Bush brought it back down to 4.4% by 2006. It was still at 4.9% in February 2008, only a few months before Bush left office.

But you see, you miss all that when you only look at the first month and the last month of a Presidency. Guess what, there are 94 other months that have to be looked in order to accurately rate the President.

Students grades are not based on the first week of the semester and the last week of the semester. Employees job performance is not based on the first week of work and the last week of work. Everything in between counts!

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

So I suppose you would like to be judged only by your first day on the job and the last day, right? To hell with the 10, 20, 30, or 40 years in between those days, right?

Well....let's look at how we judge Presidents

What were you given and what did you leave the next guy with

Bush was given a thriving economy and a balanced budget

He left office with an economic collapse, losing 770,000 jobs a month, a stock market that had lost 6500 points

Did I mention two wars

 

[U2Edge]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%

Yes, and everyone knows it was W that drove the economy to the edge of disaster. He walked away and propped his feet up on his front porch rails...

Well, while W. was in the White House, the economy averaged only 5.27% unemployment over that 8 year 96 month period, and the labor force participation rate averaged 66%, the highest in the nations history. That's what the Bush years were like. Good Times!

 

[U2Edge]

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

So I suppose you would like to be judged only by your first day on the job and the last day, right? To hell with the 10, 20, 30, or 40 years in between those days, right?

Well....let's look at how we judge Presidents

What were you given and what did you leave the next guy with

Bush was given a thriving economy and a balanced budget

He left office with an economic collapse, losing 770,000 jobs a month, a stock market that had lost 6500 points

Did I mention two wars

There is far more to judging Presidents then just that. You've got 8 years to look at with Bush, and simply looking at the first month and the last month tells you almost nothing about what the entire 8 years were like!

Yes, there were Wars in which Bush toppled Saddam from power in Iraq and toppled the Taliban form power in Afghanistan. Those are good things! America and its allies are safer today thanks to those actions!

 

[The Rabbi]

It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.

So I suppose you would like to be judged only by your first day on the job and the last day, right? To hell with the 10, 20, 30, or 40 years in between those days, right?

Well....let's look at how we judge Presidents

What were you given and what did you leave the next guy with

Bush was given a thriving economy and a balanced budget

He left office with an economic collapse, losing 770,000 jobs a month, a stock market that had lost 6500 points

Did I mention two wars

Hmm, Bush got a surging al Qaeda after the first WTC bombing, the Somali disaster, and other attacks that went basically unresponded. Bush got the dot com implosion and plummeting federal revenues. Bush turned those around and didnt experience a terrorist attack after that. Bush inherited a militant Ghaddafi and got him to give up his nuclear program, and eventually out of power. Bush got a Saddam violating evey accord he ever signed and murdering Iraqis and got him out of power. Bush got a Taliban terrorizing their own people and harboring al Qaeda and got them out of power.
Then disaster. Bush got a Democratic Congress in '07 and it was downhill. He tried working with them and they took advantage and denounced him every chance. The GOP tried reining in Fannie/Freddie and the Dems thwarted them. Then the economy went down hill.
The Dems passed 67 resolution condemning the Iraq war but wouldnt actually do anything to stop it.

 

[Indeependent]

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's Zmas night and maybe you ate a heavy meal.
Read the paragraph I quoted again. Then read what Nutsucker wrote. Then tell me precisely why I quoted this and what was wrong with what he wrote.
Go!

I read it three times and you should read what RightWinger wrote even ONCE.
He presented what happens in REALITY and you tried, as usual, to nuance him into the "You're wrong!" corner using a Copy & Paste.
Yes, he skipped ONE TINY step that he posted from his BRAIN, to HIS credit, and you ran for Wikipedia because the administrative process involves active thought.

The bottom line is...
What RW said is correct.

OK, I tried, really.
For starters it was Ron, not Nutsucker.
Second, what he wrote was:

If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.

Note the words in bold: The only way.
Now see where I quoted from the Constitution:

If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it,

Because you'e proven yourself a complete moron, and I mean a total incompetent clown, I'll spell out that there are two ways, not one way, that a bill becomes law.
1) The president signs it.
2) The president does not send it back to Congress and takes no action.
SO there are two ways, not one way. "The only way" indicates one way. Which is wrong.
So you've committed three errors here:
1) You attributed the statement to Nutsucker, not Ron
2) You failed to heed my advice and read over the post carefully
3) You failed to understand the difference between "the only way" and the two actual ways the Constitution lays out.

This is why I know you have low normal intelligence. You cannot read and understand a simple paragraph or the simple meaning of words. They all mean pretty much the same thing to you. No attention to detail. This is why your screen name is misspelled.

So as I explained before, you searched for a nuance that nobody else cares about and are now tooting your "superior" intelligence.
In fact, you NEVER state anything more than, "You're stupid" to ANYONE.
You simply wait in hiding for someone to slip up a tiny bit.
A great debater that does NOT make.

AND I notice how when I am WIDE awake and post a clear explanation of a topic, such as earlier today, with how Health Facilities run and deal with The Census, you run and hide like the zero dimension wing nut you are.

You are a zero.
Now work on at least being a .01.