Home Depot Co-Founder Blasts Obama

LadyJazzer wrote: Successive administrations had exactly the same constitutional rights to undo whatever FDR put in place if they didn't like it... He didn't pass any new Amendments giving extra powers that I'm aware of. So, if they didn't like it, they the same Constitutional mechanism to change that he did to implement...i.e., a Congressional majority... He proposed Justices, and he had the votes to do it. You don't like the outcome? Vote in a new set of justices... But your incessant whining is tiresome... and you need to get over it... Hamilton lost.

Hamilton did indeed lose LJ, that is until FDR came around. FDR succeeded where Hamilton had failed in setting us on a course for the federal government to be a national one - complete with all of the corruptions contained within the national government that the founding generation shed so much blood to rid themselves and their posterity of.

PS: How did he happen to HAVE that huge majority in Congress?... Oh wait... He came in after Herbert Hoover started the Depression, and the people were fed up with the incompetence of the REPUBLICAN administration that destroyed the economy. So, they cleaned house, and kicked out all of the Republicans... Dang... That must hurt.

Save your "blood to rid themselves" bullsh*t for someone who gives a flip...

FDR succeeded because the Republicans blew it, and the Dems took over control... How did they get control?...They were voted in by the PEOPLE who were fed up with the Republicans.

Care to enlighten us as to why a more liberal interpretation as to who is included in that fraternity is something to be avoided other than the obvious one which is that would prevent the regressives from having a platform to use for their demagogic playbook?

Deflectors on maximum, Scotty...

Ironic, isn't it. The same ill informed public knee jerk reaction that led the nation to electing someone who was only capable of perpetuating the economic problem in 1932 would be repeated in 2008 and that both of them are relying upon the same failed economic model as a foundation for their actions.

Ironic isn't it that the man chosen to lead the country out of the ill-informed Republican governance that brought on the Depression and Crash of 1929, elected someone they saw as their savior to the previous Hoover administration's elitism and nincompoopery. Who would have thought that the same moronic idiocy that didn't work in '29, would be the call of the Righties in 2011?



Isn't it funny how he never addresses the issue of the "G.I. Bill of Rights", and "VA Loan Program", (to name two).... I suppose screwing over the WWII vets since it was done with collected tax-dollars was OK with you too, huh? Or were they sufficiently "deserving" that you're okay with that...just not okay with all the other uses of it? How far does your hypocrisy go?

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Successive administrations had exactly the same constitutional rights to undo whatever FDR put in place if they didn't like it... He didn't pass any new Amendments giving extra powers that I'm aware of. So, if they didn't like it, they the same Constitutional mechanism to change that he did to implement...i.e., a Congressional majority... He proposed Justices, and he had the votes to do it. You don't like the outcome? Vote in a new set of justices... But your incessant whining is tiresome... and you need to get over it... Hamilton lost.

Hamilton did indeed lose LJ, that is until FDR came around. FDR succeeded where Hamilton had failed in setting us on a course for the federal government to be a national one - complete with all of the corruptions contained within the national government that the founding generation shed so much blood to rid themselves and their posterity of.

Must be the Printsmith Revisionist History Channel again. Perhaps you should review the McCullough v. Maryland decision in 1819 which adopted the Hamiltonian view of broad federal powers.

Oh yeah, I remember those bills. The GI Bill of Rights was enacted to prevent a recurrence of the Bonus Camp that had occurred when veterans from WWI demanded immediate payment for their service certificates in 1932 instead of having to wait for 1945 to redeem them. I remember that the college tuition portion of the bill resulted in the federal government being defrauded of large amounts of money as a result of the program paying the colleges directly instead of the veteran. Seems like someone would have remembered that when the changed Medicare to a direct reimbursement to the provider. I also remember that President Truman removed any tariffs from imported wood when the price of lumber skyrocketed as a result of everyone trying to pad their earnings at taxpayer expense when the federal money was being pumped into home construction and guaranteeing veteran's housing loans.

Come now LJ, we both know that the tuition grants were intended to prevent a flood of unemployed workers reentering a stagnated economy, don't we? With the colossal failure of FDR's demand side economic policies failing to produce anything other than economic stagnation in his first two terms before the outbreak of WWII, there were still no jobs for those veterans when they returned to their homes after winning the war. It took a slashing of taxes for those with capital and a slashing of government spending to bring the nation out of that depression because that is the best remedy for a depressed or recessed economy. Not more taxes and more spending, less taxes and less spending. It brought us out of the depression after WWII and it brought us quickly out of the more severe, though not as lengthy, depression following the end of WWI.

That is why the Republicans are insisting on lower taxes and drastically reduced federal spending to get us out of this current malaise. History has shown us that this is the way we emerge from economic difficulties. When more taxes and more spending are tried, the result is stagnation, not recovery. When taxes are raised too much even during good economic times, the result is less production, a slower economy and smaller than predicted revenues resulting from the tax increases. GHW Bush agreed to compromise with Democrats and impose a 10% "Luxury Tax" on people who had hundreds of thousands of dollars they didn't need to raise $6 Billion in new revenue for the federal coffers. We do remember the 77% decline in yacht sales the following year, don't we? Along with the laying off of thousands of middle class workers who built the yachts? We remember that luxury car sales dropped off over 20%, causing thousands more middle class workers to be laid off in those markets. And the tax? Surprise, surprise, surprise, it generated over $65 million less than projected in its first year. The tax increase was such a dismal failure that Clinton had to revoke the tax increase in 1993 on yachts and schedule a sunset for the luxury tax on automobiles for 10 years later. How much will lengthening the depreciation period for private jets yield again?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Must be the Printsmith Revisionist History Channel again. Perhaps you should review the McCullough v. Maryland decision in 1819 which adopted the Hamiltonian view of broad federal powers.

Reconcile for me if you will Dog, the following quote from Marshall regarding that decision:

"If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this— that the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."

Tell me Dog, what limits remain on the power of the federal government as a result of the judicial coup d'etat carried out by FDR and Congress? What control over the domestic affairs of the state are left to the government of the state as a result of their packing onto the Supreme Court justices who would ignore the Constitution and be complicit in the consolidation of power envisioned by that executive and Congress?

You are truly despicable filth... The "Bonus Camp" had NOTHING to do with the GI BIll providing college educations to returning servicemen; The fraud and scams of the defrauding of the government didn't happen on a major scale until decades later... And in all cases it was quick-buck artists on business side...uh, [job creators?]...who created businesses to scam profits... (Hmmm does that remind anyone of a certain Republican Florida governor whose company defrauded the government?

Rick Scott, Gov. of Florida:
In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[24] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.[25]

You mean kind of like THAT fraud?

PrintSmith wrote: Come now LJ, we both know that the tuition grants were intended to prevent a flood of unemployed workers reentering a stagnated economy, don't we?

Come now, PS, you can take your condescension and shove it up your a**. You ignorant twit, the economy that followed the end of WWII wasn't "stagnated"...It was one of the biggest booms in US history because of the pent-up consumer demand:

Many Americans feared that the end of World War II and the subsequent drop in military spending might bring back the hard times of the Great Depression. But instead, pent-up consumer demand fueled exceptionally strong economic growth in the post war period. The automobile industry successfully converted back to producing cars, and new industries such as aviation and electronics grew by leaps and bounds. A housing boom, stimulated in part by easily affordable mortgages for returning members of the military, added to the expansion. The nation's gross national product rose from about $200,000 million in 1940 to $300,000 million in 1950 and to more than $500,000 million in 1960. At the same time, the jump in postwar births, known as the "baby boom," increased the number of consumers. More and more Americans joined the middle class.

The Military Industrial Complex
The need to produce war supplies had given rise to a huge military-industrial complex (a term coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served as the U.S. president from 1953 through 1961). It did not disappear with the war's end. As the Iron Curtain descended across Europe and the United States found itself embroiled in a cold war with the Soviet Union, the government maintained substantial fighting capacity and invested in sophisticated weapons such as the hydrogen bomb. Economic aid flowed to war-ravaged European countries under the Marshall Plan, which also helped maintain markets for numerous U.S. goods. And the government itself recognized its central role in economic affairs. The Employment Act of 1946 stated as government policy "to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power."

You make up this sh*t as you go along... And you are one of the most unethical and incompetent posters here... You think if you generate hundreds of lines of regurgitated 18th century, Sovereign Citizen buzz-phrases, bullsh*t and claptrap from your silly websites it gives you some sort of creedence... I'm really not interested in your Constitution Party , LawAndLiberty , ReasonOfFreedom , PoliticsOfLiberty , TeaPartyPatriot excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said.

You're as big a liar as Viking...You just use longer sentences and the same silly phrases over and over.