Still think you should read them because you still don't seem to know what role the government should play. You have yet to say how you want them limited what you disagree with or what they should do, all you say is limit them or get them out.

 

I do not have data on the economic performance of presidents in the nineteenth century. I do believe that Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were two of our greatest presidents. I believe that Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt were the other two. In other words, two of my favorites were Republicans, the other two were Democrats, although the Democratic party was called the Republican party when Jefferson was president.

During the twentieth century Democrat presidents have close to a consistently better economic record than Republican presidents.

 

That may be true of some like Kennedy. But Harding, teddy, Eisenhower, ford were all presidents who did a lot for the economy. If you look at the time period most of these presidents were at they were much harsher and difficult to deal with. The depression especially and post war times were dominated by republican leaders. Hoover did help prompt some of fdrs changes as well. I think any presidency is situationally based. Each president is part of a party but if you look at the most successful ones, Lincoln, Jefferson, Johnson, both Roosevelt's, they all have their own non party agendas and run with those. It's when a president is completely engrossed in their party they are unsuccessful which is the issue of late causing gridlocks.

 

I dont care what you think, and I dont care what Thomas Piketty, Milton Friedman or
Raghuram Rajan think, all I care about is what the U.S. Constitution has to state about the role of the federal fucking government.

Emotional dependencies are not part of the government duties, I know that most politicians dont want a crisis to go to waste, the birth of Social Security,New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid,Disability Insurance, Government entitlements, $2.3 trillion spent annually, which also is destroying the middle class.

 

Preamble of the United States 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.

---------

The "establish justice" and "promote the general Welfare" clauses are clear authorizations of the welfare state.

 

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

- President Eisenhower, letter to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, November 8, 1954

 

I have compared economic performance of the eight years of President Eisenhower with the eight years of presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Now I am going to continue the comparison to the eight years of presidents Nixon and Ford.

When Nixon was president an average of 1,700,000 jobs were created per year.

When Ford was president an average of 745,000 jobs were created per year.

*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Under Nixon and Ford the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars grew by $2,160. This represents a growth of 12.26%.

*not_secure_link*www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

During the Nixon Ford years there were two recessions. The first began December 1969, and lasted eleven months. The second began November 1973, and lasted sixteen months.

*not_secure_link*www.nber.org/cycles.html

 

Exactly what is this 'fundamental' change that you think Obama is making?

 

Actually, they're worse.

 

The saddest thing is this statement is so self assuredly arrogant I just can't respect anything you say. I care what I think most of all, but I am not vain enough to believe I have the end all belief... Yes I don't think I am stupid and I think my arguments are true, but there are people in some topics who know more then me and I grow as an intellectual by reading them... No one has the end all, all we can do is talk about it and reach a conclusion. If you don't agree with that maybe you should read the doctrine of fascism by Mussolini you would get along great with him!

 

If you are interested in this splinter group they are called the virtuistic hawks. They are politicians, economists, philosophers, and businessmen who believe we should return to the 1880's way of industrialization and economic restraints. I personally subscribe to this belief, it may sound heartless but my beliefs desire the maximum progression for humanity the quickest. Like I have said maybe to you in other posts many different people think there should be programs that help the masses in times of crisis or immense exploitation, or programs to eliminate monopolies and encourage competition, but those programs have to end eventually. They become outdated and start to become obstructions not incentives.

 

Arrogant??, no, confident??, YES.

I believe and trust in the U.S. Constitution, I do not believe in the governments to do 98% of anything correctly, or endorse the free market, leave people to their own decision.

Government is necessary, but this Government is not necessary, I do not need a government official providing anything for me, especially their well intended safety nets, that alone is the reason for the demise of the middle class.

The bottom 49% rely on the federal fucking government for a handout, THIS needs to change, or there will eventually soon, be only two ''classes'' of people the rich and those that are dependent ''poor'' class.

The dependency on the federal fucking government has done nothing but divide this nation, it needs to change, it is financially killing this country within it's own borders.

 

You don't read what anyone says. You discredit yourself in vanity.

 

*not_secure_link*lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution: first, in the preamble and second, it is found in Article 1, Section 8.

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”


*not_secure_link*www.thefederalistp...-explained-by-the-framers-of-the-constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. – Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Constitution of the United States, 10th Amendment

James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” – Federalist No. 45, Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, Independent Journal, January 26, 1788; The Federalist (The Gideon Edition), (1818), Edited with an Introduction, Reader’s Guide, Constitutional Cross-reference, Index, and Glossary by George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001)

https://ajbulava.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/original-meaning-of-the-general-welfare/

Thomas Jefferson:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

 

As I have pointed out in the past, the Constitution is vaguely worded, and open to various interpretations. What matters is what the electorate wants. The electorate wants a reasonably well financed public sector of the economy paid for by progressive taxation. Republican politicians discover that whenever they get specific about reducing government spending.

 

pen

AND, most everyone, has pointed out in the past, that you are a fraudulent lying fool.

The people were not to be controlled by the Federal Fucking Government, or to be provided a financial safety net by the taxes collected by the federal fucking government, no where in the Constitution does it claim that the federal fucking government to provide social financial welfare.

The General Welfare Clause was taken out of context by politicians to buy votes, the political left uses extortion to keep their voting constituents, they lie and create a specific certain fear for the need to continue the extortion, social welfare is destroying this country financially.

The National Debt that the country is experiencing can be attributed to one issue, and one issue alone. . . .SOCIAL WELFARE.

And it will go on and on and on, forever, until one of three things happen:

1. We adopt good moral sense and courage and say no to the inordinate demands of our constituents and the special interest groups.
2. Our nation suffers an inevitable economic collapse and/or a total loss of freedom due to excessive taxation and national debt.
3. A Constitutional Amendment makes it clear that the phrase "the Common Defense and the General Welfare" in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is NOT a grant of power, but merely introductions to the enumerated powers concerning the common defense and the general welfare.

 

Johnson cared?
Johnson played a smoke and mirrors game with the budget to hide the cost of his war in Vietnam, a game that every politician since has played and Clinton took to a whole new level. We haven't had an honest budget since Johnson.

He forced rules of engagement on the military that guaranteed we could not win in VietNam, and worse, killed thousands of our own and our allies with his ignorance and ego.

Johnson was a worse president than Nixon, and only slightly better than Clinton. And that ain't saying much........

 

I know two things.
We have to return to our basic values or fail.
If we do not try we certainly will not succeed.

The founding fathers recognized that we were a diverse society; the constitution was designed around that understanding. We can respect diverse views and "identities" if we remember that with freedom comes responsibility.

 

America was (is) ready for a black (or Mexican or Oriental or Jew or woman) president. That we elected, and then reelected, an incompetent boob does not change that.

Your obsession with race is what is holding you back from being a worthy debater.

 

Shooter is in awe.
This is as biased and untruthful a use of "facts" as he's ever seen.
Like saying the Germans in WWII were helping the Jews with birth control and work ethics.
TWAT