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

[Indeependent]

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.

GW was not a leader and left us with the LARGEST Depression in US history.
I don't care HOW he polled or polls.
He had Conservative Talk Radio and FoxNews at his disposal and NEVER ONCE made a personal appearance anywhere to stop the CDSs and improper Lending practices.

He's a VERY WEALTHY moron with an equally moronic following.
At least admit that Clinton/GW/Obama suck and get on to the next loser Conservative.

 

[Indeependent]

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!

So a guy who earns 20K/year and has Lenders giving him hundreds of thousands in approved loans is bad in your opinion, yet GW is a righteous dude?

 

[ron4342]

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.



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.

I'll take your individual comments.
You know of people who don't like my views. I know of people who don't like yours and the fact Obama was elected twice seems to tell me that there are more who agree with me than with you.

Oh please, that voluntary cooperation is a perfect example of pie in the sky. Last year there were 2 million individual bankrupcies. By a large margin most of them were caused by medical bills they could not pay. Explain exactly how "voluntary cooperation" is going to help those people. Suppose you work all your life for a pension and your company collapses and the money is gone. How is voluntary cooperation going to solve that problem. GM has had several bad years and is going to go under and 100's of thousands will lose their jobs. How is voluntary cooperation going to solve their problems. Food banks around the country are close to running on empty and still more people keep coming. Eventually there is no one who can volunteer. Eventually you reach a point where there are so many poor that demand outstrips supply. If there is no one to voluntary cooperate what do you do. Should government let them die? You can deny it but one of the goals of government is to solve problems that individuals cannot solve.
And the tea party please!!!! They have to be some of the dumbest and easily led people in the world. There they are protesting the government by carrying signs reading "Government, keep your hands off my medicare." Duh!!! You defend a party that would elect and then actually listen to cruz! Please!!!!!!!!
Be upset with me if you wish but what I am pointing out are facts.
IF the people elect a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House and IF the majority of appointees on the SC are from Democratic Presidents, then the government will be in complete control of the Democrats and anything they do will be answering to the people. After all, weren't they elected to their positions BY THE PEOPLE?
The same applies if the republicans were elected to control government. You may be as unhappy as hell but the idea behind a democracy is that the majority makes the rules.
Now, I do not accept your view of government and I certainly do not want the type of government I mentioned above. I believe that if a government can help its citizens, it should help its citizens. You believe it should stay out of the way. Coolidge and Hoover did that back in 1929 and we had the worst depression in our history. What good is a government that does not try to make the lives of its citizens better. What good is a government that is willing to let its citizens starve to death when it can help them? Why don't you just call for a king and be done with it.
I want a government of two fairly equal parties who are concerned with what is best for America and FOR ALL OF ITS CITIZENS, NOT JUST THE WEALTHY AND NOT JUST THE POOR. I want a government where the two parties are not at war with each other. I want a government where the parties can compromise and work for all Americans.

 

[Avorysuds]

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.

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.

Yes.... but the preamble are not rules.... the rules come after. Holy fuck you people wonder why no one respects you, you argue purely to argue. It's amazing how a constitution that was clearly (un-debatable) set to limit Government could so easily be overridden by "challenges of our times" based on the GWC despite the FF's clearly saying NOT to use the GWC like that.

The question is simple, with your worthless interpretation of the GWC tell us all a single thing you couldn't do under the gauze of the GWC? You could literally euthanize people under the GWC, all you need is people like you defending the GWC.

 

[Indeependent]

Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare." They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted. That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't. If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has? t would be unnecessary. It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that. But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document. It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.

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.

Yes.... but the preamble are not rules.... the rules come after. Holy fuck you people wonder why no one respects you, you argue purely to argue. It's amazing how a constitution that was clearly (un-debatable) set to limit Government could so easily be overridden by "challenges of our times" based on the GWC despite the FF's clearly saying NOT to use the GWC like that.

The question is simple, with your worthless interpretation of the GWC tell us all a single thing you couldn't do under the gauze of the GWC? You could literally euthanize people under the GWC, all you need is people like you defending the GWC.

I guess we better excise that "General Clause".
The Preamble serves as an assay.
The fact is that the majority of rules one faces in life come from Municipality, County and State government.
Heck, even Federal taxes are hiked simply to "trickle" back down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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%

On the current UE trajectory, Obama will drop below Ford and Reagan by the end of his presidency.

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Want to look at eight years of Bush?

Gave up the worst terrorist attack in US history
Attacked two countries unprovoked
engaged in torture
Did nothing during Katrina
Did nothing as the economy collapsed

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Surging AlQaeda?

Then why did he ignore it?

gave up the worst attack in US History

 

[U2Edge]

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!

So a guy who earns 20K/year and has Lenders giving him hundreds of thousands in approved loans is bad in your opinion, yet GW is a righteous dude?

Got rid of Saddam in Iraq, rid of the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, had average unemployment rate of 5.27%. Seems pretty righteous to me!

 

[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%

On the current UE trajectory, Obama will drop below Ford and Reagan by the end of his presidency.

I certainly hope so! It will be a real bitch though if the employment participation rate increases. Unemployment right now would be about 11% if the employment participation rate was as high as it was under W. .

 

[asterism]

After Bush spent 12 billion a MONTH in Iraq for 5 years straight, that is your big Obama complaint?

lol you phoney fuck.

Money well spent and I might add, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP for defense and the wars while Bush was President, was less than total US defense spending during the peacetime of the 1980s as a percentage of GDP!

Money well spent why? Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.

Making the cease-fire matter again.

 

[RKMBrown]

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!

Want to look at eight years of Bush?

Gave up the worst terrorist attack in US history
Attacked two countries unprovoked
engaged in torture
Did nothing during Katrina
Did nothing as the economy collapsed

You're retarded. Merry Christmas.

 

[U2Edge]

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!

Want to look at eight years of Bush?

Gave up the worst terrorist attack in US history
Attacked two countries unprovoked
engaged in torture
Did nothing during Katrina
Did nothing as the economy collapsed

Attacked two countries unprovoked?!?! LOL I think not.

The Taliban harbored and supported Al Quada which meant they had to be removed.

In the case with Saddam, the United States was already at war with Saddam. The war started in August 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait! There was a ceacefire after Saddam's military was pushed out of Kuwait, but that ceacefire was broken again by Saddam which resulted in the United States bombing Iraq every year from 1992 through 2002, then the invasion to remove Saddam in 2003, followed by 8 years of stabilizing and rebuilding the country so it could stand on its own without American troops on the ground.

Oh by the way, Bush did not create Katrina. Obama copied what Bush did to end the recession and by the third quarter of 2009, there was positive GDP growth again.

 

[Oldstyle]

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...

As a general rule...when you make the statement "everyone knows it", Jim...you're talking out of your ass. Everyone does NOT know that George W. Bush drove the economy to the edge of disaster! W. simply happened to be President when policies given to us by BOTH Democrats and Republicans caused a melt-down. It would have been no different if Al Gore or John Kerry had been in the Oval Office.

As for your contention that Bush "walked away" from the crisis? Bush is the one who gave us TARP...the main reason we didn't go over that "edge of disaster" you refer to and he is the one who used TARP as it should have been used...as a short term loan to prop up financial institutions which would then be repaid.

In reality the people who "walked away" from the recession were Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They put the economy on a back burner while they went after the ACA. Five years later the unemployment rate is STILL abysmal because to that decision.

 

[Indeependent]

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!

So a guy who earns 20K/year and has Lenders giving him hundreds of thousands in approved loans is bad in your opinion, yet GW is a righteous dude?

Got rid of Saddam in Iraq, rid of the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, had average unemployment rate of 5.27%. Seems pretty righteous to me!

Sorry bud, Moron GW still talks like his Cocaine Addicted economy never crashed.
He wasn't a leader and left millions unemployed and foreclosed upon.
You don't get to average out incompetency.

And you know what?
If O doesn't change the Clinton/GW/Obame policies we have, HE'S gonna go down as a schmuck also.
The ACA is a bad band-aid, NOT a solution.

 

[U2Edge]

So a guy who earns 20K/year and has Lenders giving him hundreds of thousands in approved loans is bad in your opinion, yet GW is a righteous dude?

Got rid of Saddam in Iraq, rid of the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, had average unemployment rate of 5.27%. Seems pretty righteous to me!

Sorry bud, Moron GW still talks like his Cocaine Addicted economy never crashed.
He wasn't a leader and left millions unemployed and foreclosed upon.
You don't get to average out incompetency.

And you know what?
If O doesn't change the Clinton/GW/Obame policies we have, HE'S gonna go down as a schmuck also.
The ACA is a bad band-aid, NOT a solution.

If that were really the case, Bush would have been easily defeated in 2004. Instead, a country that had been leaning to the left for some time re-elected Bush!

Bush did well for his time in office, and while he was in office, the country was working, people had jobs, roofs over their heads, and food in their mouths. That's what the average man on the street remembers about the years 2001 through 2008.

He also removed bad men, dictators from power over seas, that threatened the world. That's a good thing, unless of course your a Saddam Lover or worship the Taliban.

 

[The Rabbi]

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:
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.

Exactly what I expected from a low life like you. I take great pains to show why you are completely wrong and missed a very important point and you belittle it, call me names, and bring up incorrect and irrelevant info.
Everyone here should ignore your uninformed ignorant ass and you should go away and die somewhere.

 

[Darkwind]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

I don't think you understand the difference between promote and provide. Let Me use an example to help you.

To promote the General Welfare, government is responsible to ensure that no laws are enacted that would deter from infringing on My rights as an individual. To promote that general welfare, they are required to maintain an environment in which those rights can exist. The Second Amendment right to own arms is "Promoted" by ensuring that anti-gun people do not prevent My ownership of arms.

This right does not mean that Government is required, in fact they are forbidden from doing so, to give me a firearm. The government does not provide guns in order to promote the Second Amendment.

The very same thing occurs with other issues. Economic prosperity can be promoted by government to ensure that those who chase "Life, Liberty, and Happiness", can in fact find and achieve it. However, government is not responsible, and in truth is restricted from, providing economic restoration to the individual.

The singular difference between providing the general welfare and promoting the general welfare is that the former enslaves the citizen through dependance, while the latter frees the citizen to achieve every dream they desire, provided they make the effort to chase it.

The General Welfare Clause is NOT cart blache for the government to do as it pleases.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

I don't think you understand the difference between promote and provide. Let Me use an example to help you.

To promote the General Welfare, government is responsible to ensure that no laws are enacted that would deter from infringing on My rights as an individual. To promote that general welfare, they are required to maintain an environment in which those rights can exist. The Second Amendment right to own arms is "Promoted" by ensuring that anti-gun people do not prevent My ownership of arms.

This right does not mean that Government is required, in fact they are forbidden from doing so, to give me a firearm. The government does not provide guns in order to promote the Second Amendment.

The very same thing occurs with other issues. Economic prosperity can be promoted by government to ensure that those who chase "Life, Liberty, and Happiness", can in fact find and achieve it. However, government is not responsible, and in truth is restricted from, providing economic restoration to the individual.

The singular difference between providing the general welfare and promoting the general welfare is that the former enslaves the citizen through dependance, while the latter frees the citizen to achieve every dream they desire, provided they make the effort to chase it.

The General Welfare Clause is NOT cart blache for the government to do as it pleases.

Not even close...

Promote the General Welfare means do what is in the best interest of the country. If that means helping people who need help....so be it

 

[Derideo_Te]

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.

That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution. Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means? Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?

I don't think you understand the difference between promote and provide. Let Me use an example to help you.

To promote the General Welfare, government is responsible to ensure that no laws are enacted that would deter from infringing on My rights as an individual. To promote that general welfare, they are required to maintain an environment in which those rights can exist. The Second Amendment right to own arms is "Promoted" by ensuring that anti-gun people do not prevent My ownership of arms.

This right does not mean that Government is required, in fact they are forbidden from doing so, to give me a firearm. The government does not provide guns in order to promote the Second Amendment.

The very same thing occurs with other issues. Economic prosperity can be promoted by government to ensure that those who chase "Life, Liberty, and Happiness", can in fact find and achieve it. However, government is not responsible, and in truth is restricted from, providing economic restoration to the individual.

The singular difference between providing the general welfare and promoting the general welfare is that the former enslaves the citizen through dependance, while the latter frees the citizen to achieve every dream they desire, provided they make the effort to chase it.

The General Welfare Clause is NOT cart blache for the government to do as it pleases.

Semantic nitpicking on the definition of the word promote does not negate the meaning of the word welfare.