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

[The Rabbi]

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

That isnt promoting the general welfare. That is promoting the welfare of specific people at the expense of other people.
Another fail. Then again, you're crazy.

 

[Jarhead]

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

I disagree.

I understand promoting the general welfare as meaning to suggest to the people what is in the bet interest of the country.

When one promotes a product he/she does not force you to buy it. They explain why it is in your best interest to buy it and suggest you buy it.

The government is not promoting the general welfare. It is forcing you to do what it perceives is for the general welfare.

Therefore it does not promote. It enacts.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

No. Semantic nitpicking it is not. There are very specific differences between promoting and providing.

To promote the general welfare is exactly as I stated. It is the difference between teaching someone to care for themselves (promoting) and having someone care for you (providing).

I can promote the general welfare by making accessible to the citizens, a means of moving goods or labor to a market. Which is why no one of common sense decries maintenance of roadways. However, to provide the general welfare is to 'keep' people as chattel under the guise of doing what is best for them.

When it is interpreted that the general welfare must be provided, then there is no longer a basis for the rule of law. When it feels good, or some people feel, that the masses must exist to support the few, then we truly live in a system of chaos and the men we have provided power to begin to ignore the laws in favor of their own power.

It is akin to rewriting a law to favor a political position to keep power. Much like the unauthorized rewriting of the healthcare law without the authority to do so.

After all, if it is the law of the land, it should be followed to the letter, no?

This is the danger of rewriting the meanings of words like "Promote" and "Provide" and dismiss critics of the misuse of power as 'nitpickers'.

 

[rightwinger]

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

That isnt promoting the general welfare. That is promoting the welfare of specific people at the expense of other people.
Another fail. Then again, you're crazy.

No law affects each person equally. Typically any law you pass helps one person at the expense of another

 

[rightwinger]

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.

No. Semantic nitpicking it is not. There are very specific differences between promoting and providing.

To promote the general welfare is exactly as I stated. It is the difference between teaching someone to care for themselves (promoting) and having someone care for you (providing).

I can promote the general welfare by making accessible to the citizens, a means of moving goods or labor to a market. Which is why no one of common sense decries maintenance of roadways. However, to provide the general welfare is to 'keep' people as chattel under the guise of doing what is best for them.

When it is interpreted that the general welfare must be provided, then there is no longer a basis for the rule of law. When it feels good, or some people feel, that the masses must exist to support the few, then we truly live in a system of chaos and the men we have provided power to begin to ignore the laws in favor of their own power.

It is akin to rewriting a law to favor a political position to keep power. Much like the unauthorized rewriting of the healthcare law without the authority to do so.

After all, if it is the law of the land, it should be followed to the letter, no?

This is the danger of rewriting the meanings of words like "Promote" and "Provide" and dismiss critics of the misuse of power as 'nitpickers'.

Promoting and providing are not mutually exclusive.

You can promote the General Welfare by providing help to some people

 

[MarcATL]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

Answer: For partisan political reasons.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

Answer: For partisan political reasons.

Certainly.

1st three months demonstrate confidence or doubt in policy and leadership.

 

[MarcATL]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

Answer: For partisan political reasons.

Certainly.

1st three months demonstrate confidence or doubt in policy and leadership.

Riiiight.....

Another made-up rule by the far right wing fundamentalist Republicans.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Answer: For partisan political reasons.

Certainly.

1st three months demonstrate confidence or doubt in policy and leadership.

Riiiight.....

Another made-up rule by the far right wing fundamentalist Republicans.

Made up ?

You size up a new situation, boss, job, leader in the first 3 months and act accordingly.

 

[dblack]

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

That isnt promoting the general welfare. That is promoting the welfare of specific people at the expense of other people.
Another fail. Then again, you're crazy.

No law affects each person equally. Typically any law you pass helps one person at the expense of another

So, equal protection is just a wash, eh?

No, there's an important difference between laws that are established to protect our rights equally, and those that divide us into classes and deliberately treat people differently depending on what special interest group they belong to.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again libs think the function of government is to assure predetermined ends, like equality. By which they mean equality of outcome not equality before the law, which is the actual meaning.

 

[U2Edge]

The monthly unemployment rate for December was 6.7%. This is Obama's 60th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.70% in November at 59 months to the average 8.65% in December at 60 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 8.65%

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: 8.65%

 

[chuckklr98]

The monthly unemployment rate for December was 6.7%. This is Obama's 60th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.70% in November at 59 months to the average 8.65% in December at 60 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 8.65%

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: 8.65%

Funny how the Unemployment #s drop, but never the SNAP/Welfare %'s. They keep going up.............................makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[bripat9643]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

Answer: For partisan political reasons.

Once you start moving the goal posts, you can come up with any result you want.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No. Semantic nitpicking it is not. There are very specific differences between promoting and providing.

To promote the general welfare is exactly as I stated. It is the difference between teaching someone to care for themselves (promoting) and having someone care for you (providing).

I can promote the general welfare by making accessible to the citizens, a means of moving goods or labor to a market. Which is why no one of common sense decries maintenance of roadways. However, to provide the general welfare is to 'keep' people as chattel under the guise of doing what is best for them.

When it is interpreted that the general welfare must be provided, then there is no longer a basis for the rule of law. When it feels good, or some people feel, that the masses must exist to support the few, then we truly live in a system of chaos and the men we have provided power to begin to ignore the laws in favor of their own power.

It is akin to rewriting a law to favor a political position to keep power. Much like the unauthorized rewriting of the healthcare law without the authority to do so.

After all, if it is the law of the land, it should be followed to the letter, no?

This is the danger of rewriting the meanings of words like "Promote" and "Provide" and dismiss critics of the misuse of power as 'nitpickers'.

Promoting and providing are not mutually exclusive.

You can promote the General Welfare by providing help to some people

No you can't.

 

[bripat9643]

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

That isnt promoting the general welfare. That is promoting the welfare of specific people at the expense of other people.
Another fail. Then again, you're crazy.

No law affects each person equally. Typically any law you pass helps one person at the expense of another

Yeah. Laws against stealing affect thieves more than they affect honest people.

 

[billyerock1991]

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%

nothing like creative lying and I guess you have failed again When FDR came to office unemployment was at 24.9% ... FDR in 1937 still had an unemployment rate of 13.2% in 1937 which actually rose to 19.8% a year later. the rise was caused once again by dems listening to republicans ... FDR then reversed his position and unemployment went down before WW2 ... at the start of the war it was 14%... so nice try in spinning your lie here ... on and by the way the crash was caused by republicans deregulating the banks ... sound Filmillure ??? ...

P.S.
unemployment is at 6.7% right now

 

[bripat9643]

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%

nothing lie creative lying and I guess you have failed again When FDR came to office unemployment was at 24.9% ... FDR in 1937 still had an unemployment rate of 13.2% in 1937 which actually rose to 19.8% a year later. the rise was caused once again by dems listening to republicans ... FDR then reversed his position and unemployment went down before WW2 ... at the start of the war it was 14%... so nice try in spinning your lie here ... on and by the way the crash was caused by republicans deregulating the banks ... sound Filmillure ??? ...

P.S.
unemployment is at 6.7% right now

Notice that he said "SINCE WW II."

Apparently you are illiterate.

 

[billyerock1991]

The monthly unemployment rate for December was 6.7%. This is Obama's 60th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.70% in November at 59 months to the average 8.65% in December at 60 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

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

Barrack Obama: 8.65%

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: 8.65%

Funny how the Unemployment #s drop, but never the SNAP/Welfare %'s. They keep going up.............................makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm

it appears you have been looking things up ... welfare has drop a lot in the past 20 years ... where have you been ??? oh that right watching fox noise ...the misinforming network .. when you say hummm do you hear a buzzing in your head???

 

[billyerock1991]

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%

nothing lie creative lying and I guess you have failed again When FDR came to office unemployment was at 24.9% ... FDR in 1937 still had an unemployment rate of 13.2% in 1937 which actually rose to 19.8% a year later. the rise was caused once again by dems listening to republicans ... FDR then reversed his position and unemployment went down before WW2 ... at the start of the war it was 14%... so nice try in spinning your lie here ... on and by the way the crash was caused by republicans deregulating the banks ... sound Filmillure ??? ...

P.S.
unemployment is at 6.7% right now

Notice that he said "SINCE WW II."

Apparently you are illiterate.

I realize your historical Knowledge is limited ... but we all knew that... according to historical information WW2 started in 1939 ... I realize you don't seem to be well educated and the war did start in the beginnings of 1939 ... as my post stated in 1939 it was at 14%, as I'm pointed out to you, the real illiterate one here is you, that WW2 started in 1939 ... I realize the united states entered in 1941, but hey the guy did say SINCE WW2 ... he didn't say SINCE the United states came into the war, he clearly said SINCE WW II. ... so if you want to name call, I guess you dumb fucked www2 started in 1939 ...
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
do you ever get tired of fucking your self over time and time again????
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA