Rasmussen Poll: Half of US Sees Biden as Unfit to Be President

• Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[20] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[21]
  
  
  From your own link....
  

 

And once again I would remind you, Te, that "welfare" in the late 18th-century, when the Constitution was WRITTEN, meant "well-being" in the English language. It never occurred to anyone to insert a 'welfare smorgasbord' into the foundational document of the nation!

The idea of 'handout government welfare' programs simply didn't exist in the thoughts of any political philosopher, whether English, French, or American. Indeed, the idea of anyone demanding to be paid by the government to do nothing but avoid working while complaining endlessly was so alien that no one but thieves, pickpockets, burglars, and other criminals even thought about it.

You mention Hamilton...? Well, all I can say about a conniving manipulator like Alexander Hamilton is summed-up in a wish that vice-president Aaron Burr had killed the son-of-a-bitch about five years earlier than he did! We would have been spared many terrible afflictions as a nation if Hamilton had never even existed at all....

. "G'bye, Alex -- you'll be of better use to Satan in Hell than you ever were to America!"

 

I realize poo-slinging is endemic, but its effectiveness is based on having a reasonable grounding in truth.

If you don't have work and the government gives you money, do you really think that doesn't translate in government putting food on the table?

 

Poo slinging relationship with truth is specious at best of which Democrats populates the same low ground as Republicans. Biden is no differnt.

It does not, as Trump had given two stimulus checks prior and was attempting a third. So either your perception is skewed or you aren't being politically honest.

In either case, the president didn't put food on the table. They handed out "economic stimulus" that only does long term harm to society.

 

Thank you for confirming you do not understand the Constitution. It works for the United States (the federal government), the States and the People and when it is addressing any of them it uses those terms.

The Tax and Spend clause is about the United States, the federal government, and how it will fund it's maintenance of obligations, it is not about paying YOUR, People, maintenance and obligations.

 

If you're saying they all lie, I'm afraid I agree.

He got credit for helping early on, but he didn't challenge Republicans to go with the $2,000 payment. He should have made a big deal out of pushing for the $2,000 before the election.

When he was pushing it past Republicans who oppose it? Oh, I think most people see him as the reason they got the money.

Yes, we all paid for the stimulus. It didn't come from Joe, nor did Trump create the vaccine. I was talking about perception.

The stimulus harm society? No. I don't think you can make a moral or practical case for it being harmful. It's good economics.

 

Obviously you NEVER bothered to RESEARCH the TERM well-being, Cy!

https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/...l-being is the experience,level of well-being.)

So the Founding Fathers STIPULATED that HEALTHCARE was part of the WELFARE of We the People according to the DEFINITION of the term.

The Founding Fathers also STIPULATED that PROSPERITY was part of the WELFARE of We the People which means that they were OPPOSED to the EXPLOITATION of paying hardworking Americas LESS than a LIVING WAGE so that they would NOT be able to ACHIEVE the WELL-BEING of prosperity.

Thanks for CONFIRMING that the Founding Fathers did WANT to ensure the WELFARE of We the People via HEALTHCARE and LIVING WAGES.

Looks like we finally AGREE on the WELFARE aspect of the Constitution.

 

Which part of this statement needs to be EXPLAINED?

Thank you for CONFIRMING that you do NOT understand how the Constitution works FOR We the People's WELFARE.

 

The ABSENCE of any stimulus is harmful to the economy and We the People but good luck getting that concept through to those who believe in Q-GOP conspiracy nonsense.

 

If the VP takes over after the Midterm, their 1st term doesn't count against the limit. 10 years is the mas a president can serve assuming they take over exactly 2 years in and win 2 more terms. If the VP takes over before the midterm, it counts against the limit and they can only run (and win) the 1 time.

 

Nah, I'll stick to English. I thought I'd be dead before the country really fell apart, but Xiden is moving the time table up pretty fast.

 

Well, if you cannot enjoy what's been happening the past 60 days, I'd suggest the afterlife might be preferable....

 

I would disagree. It is not only immoral but it is bad economics, especially long term.

 

The more immediate need for us, considering that Biden has recklessly thrown open the border already, is to learn rudimentary Spanish.

A lot of us out here in the Southwest already know enough 'Mexican' to get by -- sort of -- but we all need to have several phrases committed to memory RIGHT NOW -- especially those of us who live in "Sanctuary Cities" and "Sanctuary States" !

Examples:

"Do not come within two meters (~ six feet) of me!" >> "¡No te acerques a dos metros de mí!"

"I don't know where the government welfare departments are." >> "No sé dónde están los departamentos de bienestar del gobierno."

"You can steal my car but it doesn't run. I'm too broke to fix it now." >> "Puedes robar mi auto pero no funciona. Estoy demasiado arruinado para arreglarlo ahora."

Thanks, Google "Translator"!

 

Obviously, you invest a LOT of credibility in the findings of Tschiki Davis, founder of "The Berkeley Well-Being Institute". While it's not exactly 'ground-breaking' in scope or content, this article of hers is actually a good primer in the understanding of things that can contribute to a feeling of well-being.

From her article, which you posted a link to, we learn the following:

5 Major Types of Well-Being

• Emotional Well-Being. The ability to practice stress-management and relaxation techniques, be resilient, boost self-love, and generate the emotions that lead to good feelings.
• Physical Well-Being. The ability to improve the functioning of your body through healthy living and good exercise habits.
• Social Well-Being. The ability to communicate, develop meaningful relationships with others, and maintain a support network that helps you overcome loneliness.
• Workplace Well-Being. The ability to pursue your interests, values, and life purpose in order to gain meaning, happiness, and enrichment professionally.
• Societal Well-Being. The ability to actively participate in a thriving community, culture, and environment.

There are also numerous suggestions she makes about less stress, better nutritional content, being happy, and more socially-connected. There's nothing there to object to, Te, and I don't.... Who among us doesn't want to be happy? Indeed, our Founding Fathers wanted all citizens to enjoy, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"....

Nevertheless, I truly did not see anything in Dr. Davis' article about 19th-century English used in the writing of the Constitution, government handout welfare systems, a 'living wage', or, Joe Biden's fitness to be president.

 

The GOP fighting it out are more interested in settling who control the Party than economic recovery.

 

:roflol

Your feeble attempt at denigrating someone with a DOCTORATE and who is a recognized EXPERT on the subject of well-being just REEKS of DESPERATION on your part, Cy.

The ONUS is entirely on YOU to PROVE that the DEFINITION of well-being is NOT the same as it was when the Constitution was written.

Needless to say you WON'T because you CANNOT which will only harm YOUR credibility.

Sad!

 

I didn't "denigrate" her article, its content, or her academic status ("Dr. Davis"). But, you can think so if that 'floats your boat'.... Actually, as I have already indicated, I think that article imparts some very worthy, worthwhile advice!

Now, what I DID say was, "I truly did not see anything in Dr. Davis' article about 19th-century English used in the writing of the Constitution, government handout welfare systems, a 'living wage', or, Joe Biden's fitness to be president."

And nothing in your fiery rebuttal suggests that what she wrote did address any of those things. I suggest, instead, that you renew your counterattack on @Talon for his masterful Post #343 in this thread, because the truth is that his observations are, uh, formidable.... You'll have your work cut out for you....

 

No, the border has not been "thrown open," but Biden will have to deal with the problem effectively before any deal to fix immigration is likely.[/QUOTE]

 

We can't apply strict construction after 200+ years. We'd end up litigating ourselves into oblivion.

 

Go ahead, Make a case a stimulus at this point is a bad idea. This economist would love to see you try.

P.S. It doesn't have to be $1.9t.

 

[/QUOTE]

No, I disagree. The border 'gate' is not only thrown open, the barrier itself is all but torn off the hinges...and the worst is yet to come.

Think: It isn't even SPRING yet. What do you imagine it will be like anywhere on our Southern border ALL SUMMER LONG...?

. Déjà vu, 2014...? Thanks, Obama... thanks, Joe. "No borders, no country." -- D. Trump

 

If you are a so called "economist" , then be aware that there are other economists on this board (and elsewhere) that has made the argument, and they are valid within their discipline. I understand that Neo-Chartalist deem debt as not necessarily a bad thing in a sovereign government, but we are already seeing the inflationary effects. If you are an economists, we would need to drill down to how using the calculation of economic growth is misleading (specifically G) when calculating GDP.

You know they old saying: "Did you know that is you take all the economists in the world and place them end to end around the earth, they would all still point in a different direction."

Regarding it's immorality, that's simple to explain. In order to provide a real stimulus, it requires wealth to be provided. In order to provide wealth without one earning it, it wast be taken by coercion, threat of the initiation of violence from those who have earneed it. All of those means are immoral.

 

Although I agree with philosophically, in a general sense, unfortunately you are wrong about what it takes to provide a "real stimulus". You may have been correct prior to 2008, but since then all that is needed to provide a "stimulus" is a central bank (the "Fed"), which is outside the direct control of voting citizens, to create -- out of thin air -- all the imaginary money that is wanted or needed for any purpose -- and at near-ZERO percent interest! A stock market gambler's delight!

Currently the National Debt is just north of twenty-eight TRILLION Dollars, and the ratio of debt-versus-GDP is just about to touch 130%. Link: https://www.usdebtclock.org

And, the dreaded 'tipping-point', as you probably know, for going into very dangerous territory with debt-versus-GDP is 77%.

. "You better wake up, gweilo -- ours is only 45.8%...."

 

I guess its a moot point now that he actually did hold a prime time address to the nation.