PDA

View Full Version : Governor Gollum Gives Up On Jobs



Qtec
10-15-2011, 03:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Governor Gollum Rick Scott of Florida has apparently decided to continue his hard-fought campaign to deliver the state of Florida to the Democratic party in the 2012 election.

Gov. Rick Scott on Thursday added more nuance to his <span style='font-size: 17pt'>campaign promise to create jobs</span>, questioning the validity of the state’s economic forecast and saying he just has to stop unemployment from rising.

“The bottom line is, I could argue that I don’t have to create any jobs,” Scott said on 540-AM in Maitland. “I just have to make sure we don’t lose jobs.“ </div></div>

Gollum.

http://bobcesca.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RickScott.jpg

Stand up guy.

watch him squirm........like worms do. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIYad3TvY6Q)

"Can you define what you mean by market? I'm not sure I understand."

This is the lying SOB that republicans voted for!!!!!

Q....

Qtec
10-15-2011, 05:05 AM
How did he win?

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3tdLfpjTsU&feature=related)
Q

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 05:52 AM
I thort jobs died.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 06:01 AM
I liked him better when he sang with midnight oil.
mac.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hgukduYJZ44

llotter
10-15-2011, 07:14 AM
I haven't read the FL Constitution but my guess is that creating jobs is not a function of their government.

The same is true of the US Constitution, where there is also no responsibility for job creation.

The best was to create jobs is for government to follow their Constitution and let the citizens provide for their own welfare.

LWW
10-15-2011, 07:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read the FL Constitution but my guess is that creating jobs is not a function of their government.

The same is true of the US Constitution, where there is also no responsibility for job creation.

The best was to create jobs is for government to follow their Constitution and let the citizens provide for their own welfare. </div></div>

What is this heretical madness of which you speak?

Soflasnapper
10-15-2011, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read the FL Constitution but my guess is that creating jobs is not a function of their government.

The same is true of the US Constitution, where there is also no responsibility for job creation.

The best was to create jobs is for government to follow their Constitution and let the citizens provide for their own welfare. </div></div>

Quite so, I guess. Then why did he promise something to the contrary, only now to take it back?

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 02:51 PM
Shood a person with a job escape to Florida, then Florida must return that person, and job, if claimed.
mac.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.</div></div>

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 03:24 PM
Madison.
With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
Letter to James Robertson (1831-04-20

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 03:45 PM
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare",
one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[9][10]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[11] 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.[12]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[13]

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[14] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[15] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[16] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 03:47 PM
So, theusofa Constitution iz more or less useless and toothless when it comes to doing anything about the general welfare of theusofa. Or shood be.
This leevs us with the FL Constitution.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 03:56 PM
SECTION 6. Right to work.—The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union or labor organization. The right of employees, by and through a labor organization, to bargain collectively shall not be denied or abridged. Public employees shall not have the right to strike.

HERE WE SEE THAT THERE IZ NO RIGHT TO NOT WORK.
MAC.

cushioncrawler
10-15-2011, 04:09 PM
Had a look. The Florida Constitution duznt seem to say much about jobs or employment or work, except for min wage etc.

Hell, i dont think it even haz a wishy-washy clause about general welfare, hencely it aint even az good az theusofa Constition.

Not looking good.
mac.

eg8r
10-15-2011, 09:09 PM
Well he could be your hero and just start firing prison workers to save a few bucks.

eg8r

eg8r
10-15-2011, 09:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read the FL Constitution but my guess is that creating jobs is not a function of their government.</div></div>It does become one's responsiblity when they campaign on doing that very thing. If he is unsuccessful, in doing something that will create an atmosphere in this state in which companies are comfortable enough to add additional positions, then the people will vote him out.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-16-2011, 09:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did he win?

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3tdLfpjTsU&feature=related)
Q </div></div>


What can possibloly redeem this crook!

First things he did were arranged to put money in his pockets, and destroy the High Speed rail, which was shovel ready, and which ruined an opportunity for jobs in Florida, for years to come, and a huge boost to bi-coastal tourism.

Imagine if a family visiting on the Gulf Coast, could also take a high speed rail to the east coast, while vacationing.....how much tourism money would be spread around the state, not to mention that disastrous back up for workers who have to deal with that route, during rush hours, every day.

Stupid Move!

This guy is a crook, who has infringed on workers rights.

The courts are looking into this, as we write.


G.