• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

It has to do with massive government spending, not the private sector, ending the Great Depression.

Why would massive government spending be the best way out of a recession, if it is a way out at all? As we can see, super ultra massive government spending has not been able to get this economy going. Obama seems surprised at this, many of us are not surprised in the least, it was expected.
 
There were 9.7 million unemployed last month
Most of whom were not collecting benefits.

and another 700,000 discouraged.
None of whom should be collecting benefits.
In 2010 that number exceeded 16 million which is a lot closer to 20 million than your 2.8 million number
Again, you said "collecting unemployment," which means receiving benefits. The BLS numbers are not based on benefits.

My 2.8 million is the official report on people collecting benefits. Your 20 million claim was ridiculous.
 
Why would massive government spending be the best way out of a recession, if it is a way out at all? As we can see, super ultra massive government spending has not been able to get this economy going. Obama seems surprised at this, many of us are not surprised in the least, it was expected.

I'm not seeing the results either. However, I believe I'm seeing the result of the over regulation and business hostile environment as garnered by the Obama regulatory and legislative policies in such an anemic, jobless recovery, if you can call it a recovery at all. Yeah, it's way too late to blame Bush. Sorry, the Dems in congress and Obama own this (*ahem*) recovery (alleged).
 
why do you believe our Founding Fathers weren't being positive, when they enumerated the delegated power to provide for the general welfare?

this has nothing to do with Marxism; but merely socialism via our social contract.

Do please research into what exactly the 'General Welfare' clause of the constitution really means.
Hint: It's not the now common use of the same language.

Wikipedia would be sufficient, as they have 2 pretty good articles that summarizes it rather succinctly.
 
Show me in article 1 section 8

here it is;

The Congress shall have 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;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 
you may need to read up on the issue; it was massive government spending that is credited with ending the Great Depression.
He disagrees with that take on the matter.

He is of the opinion that the massive government spending prolonged the Great Depression, and the war ended it.
 
Why would massive government spending be the best way out of a recession, if it is a way out at all? As we can see, super ultra massive government spending has not been able to get this economy going. Obama seems surprised at this, many of us are not surprised in the least, it was expected.

simply due to the scale economies involved. you may want to look into the Manhattan project.
 
Do please research into what exactly the 'General Welfare' clause of the constitution really means.
Hint: It's not the now common use of the same language.

Wikipedia would be sufficient, as they have 2 pretty good articles that summarizes it rather succinctly.

I prefer not to Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have 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;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The general powers are specifically enumerated. Why should anyone believe they are not real powers?
 
He disagrees with that take on the matter.

He is of the opinion that the massive government spending prolonged the Great Depression, and the war ended it.

The war was massive government spending itself as well... which would be pretty much the same theory.
 
I prefer not to Appeal to Ignorance of our own laws.

I suppose it this means that you know better than Wikipedia? That's a pretty bold statement to make.

The general powers are specifically enumerated. Why should anyone believe they are not real powers?

No one is saying that they are not real powers. Whiff. Correct. They are enumerated. Guess what. Unemployment and welfare aren't specifically included. Some have taken the interpretation to include unemployment and welfare, but an equally valid interpretation is that they don't.
 
The war was massive government spending itself as well... which would be pretty much the same theory.

Yes, but war spending is good spending, and non-war spending is bad...

Ok I'm making **** up now, I don't really know if conservative agrees.
 
I suppose it this means that you know better than Wikipedia? That's a pretty bold statement to make.

No one is saying that they are not real powers. Whiff. Correct. They are enumerated. Guess what. Unemployment and welfare aren't specifically included. Some have taken the interpretation to include unemployment and welfare, but an equally valid interpretation is that they don't.

If they are real powers, then why would anyone believe in a wiki article that may claim they are not real powers?

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

if any of the above are real powers then they must all be, real powers.
 
simply due to the scale economies involved. you may want to look into the Manhattan project.

Well, that answer makes no sense at all, I wouldn't consider it even close to an explanation. But, as with Obama, this was expected.
I'll help you out a bit. The government sucks money OUT of the private sector. It spends and causes tremendous debt that the private sector has to pay for.
Let us know when it would be a good thing if an identity thief ran up about five credit cards in your name.
 
Well, that answer makes no sense at all, I wouldn't consider it even close to an explanation. But, as with Obama, this was expected.
I'll help you out a bit. The government sucks money OUT of the private sector. It spends and causes tremendous debt that the private sector has to pay for.
Let us know when it would be a good thing if an identity thief ran up about five credit cards in your name.

Let me help you out under our form of Capitalism; our federal Congress has recourse to an official Mint. Any questions?
 
If they are real powers, then why would anyone believe in a wiki article that may claim they are not real powers?

You are talking in circles here. Read the relavant Wikipedia articles. I'm just stating fact here. Welfare and Unemployment benefits, nor healthcare are included as part of the constitutional general welfare clause, by SCOTUS opinion.

if any of the above are real powers then they must all be, real powers.

More circles from you again. Of course there are powers specified in the welfare clause, just that Welfare and Unemployment benefits, nor healthcare are included, and it's roots are in the fact that the language use and meaning has changed since when the constitution was written.
 
What do you want from me?
Acknowledgment that you're not interested in anything unless it makes the Democrat in office look bad. I want acknowledgment you're not interested in good news (because you just won't believe it) and only want bad news because it's good for your team.

Go bother someone else with your vitriol.
...uhh, you replied to me first. So you go bother someone else with your vitriol.
 
Most of whom were not collecting benefits.

None of whom should be collecting benefits.
Again, you said "collecting unemployment," which means receiving benefits. The BLS numbers are not based on benefits.

My 2.8 million is the official report on people collecting benefits. Your 20 million claim was ridiculous.

Yes and we know how accurate the "official" govt. numbers are. My bet is that 2.8 million are collecting unemployment benefits in your state alone
 
It's not?

Well if you consider Welfare Marxism, than almost ALL of the conservative political candidates are for Marxism then because the majority don't want to get rid of all welfare. And no, I don't consider welfare Marxism.

So have fun supporting your next Marxist candidate :lamo
 
here it is;


Ok, good, I have you looking at the section...Now, explain to me exactly what you think the founders in the late 1700s understood "general welfare" to mean?

"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.”

general welfare

What you are arguing daniel is that the founders were somehow socialist in nature, and in documentation. That they wanted this unattainable socialist construct where you take from me, to give to others...That is profoundly false, and a demonstrable twisting of the intent, if not the actual words of the Constitution, and the Federalist papers...
 
Ok, good, I have you looking at the section...Now, explain to me exactly what you think the founders in the late 1700s understood "general welfare" to mean?

"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.”

general welfare

What you are arguing daniel is that the founders were somehow socialist in nature, and in documentation. That they wanted this unattainable socialist construct where you take from me, to give to others...That is profoundly false, and a demonstrable twisting of the intent, if not the actual words of the Constitution, and the Federalist papers...

And you don't have to go very far to find proof of your statement, just the small central govt. and part time legislature. If the Govt. was created as Daniel believes the Founders would have created a massive central govt. and full time legislature to administer that socialist govt
 
Well if you consider Welfare Marxism, than almost ALL of the conservative political candidates are for Marxism then because the majority don't want to get rid of all welfare. And no, I don't consider welfare Marxism.

So have fun supporting your next Marxist candidate :lamo

Wow, hang on to your socks there TNE...You're not totally wrong here....I'll explain...We have in place today a certain level of creeping Marxism that has taken progressive socialists in this country a century to put in place...And a hint for you, these progressives were in the Republican party, as well as the Democrat party...In fact the last time that progressives tried to poison the wonderful experiment called America was during FDR's reign, and before that during Wilson's reign...In both cases progressives showed too much of their true face, and were soundly rejected for decades...Now, they rear their ugly heads again...I don't know what the outcome of the current push will be the history is still being written, but I can only hope that this country wakes the hell up before this generation fully embraces the **** that comes with unabashed authoritarian socialism, and gets back to the rugged individualism we are founded on.
 
And you don't have to go very far to find proof of your statement, just the small central govt. and part time legislature. If the Govt. was created as Daniel believes the Founders would have created a massive central govt. and full time legislature to administer that socialist govt

True...I can't imagine a people that fought so hard to free themselves from the very type of authoritarian over arching control as this nations founding peoples did in the 1700s would then sit down to construct the very same system they were fleeing...It makes no sense...
 
Back
Top Bottom