or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Does President Obama play too much Golf?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does President Obama play too much Golf? - Page 43  

Poll Results: Does Obama play too much golf?

 
  • 24% (20)
    Yes
  • 75% (62)
    No
82 Total Votes  
post #757 of 786

x129:  Over and over in his speeches, and in the debates, Obama said his "plan" would not raise taxes on the middle class.  That was one of his main selling points to his followers.

 

Of course he can't directly raise taxes himself. But I rather doubt the republicans will insist on raising taxes rather than reduce spending. The game of chicken, as you put it, will have to be played before December 31.

 

http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm

 

Don't know where you came up with "And cutting ~5% of the debt in not an insignificant number in my mind."  Our national debt is over $16 trillion dollars. Our 2012 deficit is $1.33 trillion.

post #758 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
But I've always thought the increase in the rate to the people over $250k was more symbolic although it would enhance revenue. The tax system is about fairness with fairness being subjective. While I do not agree that higher rates are necessary, I would enhance capital gain revenue and close the loophole on people like Romney, where Bain gets to turn ordinary income into capital gains. That needs to go and is an example of reform.

Why is the discussion exclusively about how much more taxes should be levied and who should be targeted to have more of their money taken from them, rather than how much reduction in spending can be achieved? With an annual deficit of over $1 trillion, no amount of taxation is enough.

post #759 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post

Why is the discussion exclusively about how much more taxes should be levied and who should be targeted to have more of their money taken from them, rather than how much reduction in spending can be achieved? With an annual deficit of over $1 trillion, no amount of taxation is enough.

Ummm, that is not the only issue I've discussed. I've mentioned entitlement, defense, and government reform to reduce costs. It's possible you are underestimating the membership...

post #760 of 786

Let's look at what these tax cuts really do to a small business owner and the middle class;

 

Estate Gift Tax:  The 2012 lifetime estate/gift tax exclusion of $5,120.000 per person expires at end of year and revert back to $1M per person in 2013

Tax Rate on Dividends:  Scheduled to increase from 15% up to a potential max of 43%.  In 2013 qualified dividends will no longer be taxed at 15% capital gain rate, instead they will be taxed at ordinary income rates which are scheduled to increase to a max of 39.6% in 2013.  In addition, dividends will be subject to new 3.8% Medicare surtax

3.8% Surtax:  applied to all capital gains on persons earning income over $200K

Additional .9% medicare tax on wages over $200K

Bonus depreciation (50%) and Code Section 179 Expensing - reducing the ability to expense the cost of properly from $139,000 in 2012 down to $25,000 in 2013 on  purchase of qualified property.

 

These are the Bush Tax cuts that will impact not only the wealthy, but anyone managing their own retirement accounts, or small business owners looking to own their buildings instead of rent.  That's a potential 10% increase in taxes to small business owners.  You don't expect that to have an impact on the economy and unemployment?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

 

While I don't agree with higher tax rates, let's look at the Bush tax Cuts .... A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it's a trillion or two or three...


Why not let them expire?

post #761 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post

That's exactly why I did it. And to show that taking more money from millionaires has no effect on the deficit. 

 
Well, I agree that it's not going to solve the issue ... but I don't think that 6% equals "no effect."  I mean, it's a start.
post #762 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Let's look at what these tax cuts really do to a small business owner and the middle class;

 

Estate Gift Tax:  The 2012 lifetime estate/gift tax exclusion of $5,120.000 per person expires at end of year and revert back to $1M per person in 2013

Tax Rate on Dividends:  Scheduled to increase from 15% up to a potential max of 43%.  In 2013 qualified dividends will no longer be taxed at 15% capital gain rate, instead they will be taxed at ordinary income rates which are scheduled to increase to a max of 39.6% in 2013.  In addition, dividends will be subject to new 3.8% Medicare surtax

3.8% Surtax:  applied to all capital gains on persons earning income over $200K

Additional .9% medicare tax on wages over $200K

Bonus depreciation (50%) and Code Section 179 Expensing - reducing the ability to expense the cost of properly from $139,000 in 2012 down to $25,000 in 2013 on  purchase of qualified property.

 

These are the Bush Tax cuts that will impact not only the wealthy, but anyone managing their own retirement accounts, or small business owners looking to own their buildings instead of rent.  That's a potential 10% increase in taxes to small business owners.  You don't expect that to have an impact on the economy and unemployment?

 

Well, I think it is misleading to cut off my quote where you did - they need to make a deal. I hope that was clear.

 

My post was about strategy - let the Bush cuts expire, wipe the slate clean, and make a new deal retroactive to January 1; or do a deal before December 31.

 

I'd rather they do a deal beforehand so the markets will not flutter.

 

They've got to raise revenue and reduce spending, and they can in many ways

 

[Entitlement Reform - including motivating people to get off the dole, reducing social security payments for those in certain high income strata, reorganizing welfare and social programs to make them more efficient and reduce their spending, etc.

Reorganize the Government so it it motivated to spend less - how about bonuses to employees who save money or don't use up their budget?

Make Defense more efficient to reduce its budget - re-evaluate our Defense Strategy and where troops are situated

Tax Reform - simplify, simplify, simplify

 

Instead of raising personal income tax rates, I'd keep them as is, and reduce deductions

Have a smaller estate tax with low rates - and make it simpler. It is complex! I think Obama said he'd agree to a $3m exemption

Simplify the income tax and take out favored deductions

Lower Corporate Rates but take out "pet" deductions

Add back small tax increases - capital gains, medicare tax, surtax at low rates.]

 

Stimulate Business with temporary incentives such as investment tax credits and quicker depreciation.

 

Lots more

___

 

The point is make the tax system simpler and with lower rates, and reduce your spending, looking for ways to reduce it and make its programs more efficient. Keep the lobbyists out, use common and fiscal sense, and it can be done.

post #763 of 786

Obama's plan doesn't raise taxes. But if Boehner and the Republicans want to raise middle class taxes, there isn't much obama can do.  He can't unilaterly implement a plan. The game of chicken can be played out a long time. They can decide to pass short term funding mesures and plan to have the taxes retroactive to the beginning of the year.  And yes that is an economic disaster but given the actions during the debt ceiling crisis last year (that is back in like March), I wouldn't put anything past the Republicans this time.  Ideally the house and senate should have spent the past year coming up with a solution but the republicans gambled that they would win the white house and senate. Now that they have lost we get to see the back up plan. Maybe they will come up with a comprise where they keep the rates the same but cut deductions (i.e. Obama's idea of a 28% cap or Mitt's idea of a fixed dollar.  Mitt's idea is actually pretty brilliant if you think about it but without details it really hard to judge). Maybe just get rid of the carried interest scam and a few other loopholes leave the other rates alone for a couple years. I have a lot of confidence that something will be worked out.  I have less confidence that it will be done by Jan 1.

 

80 billion is 5% of 1.4 trillion (actually a bit more but I don't have a calculator). It is a noticeable amount of money. For example it would pay for Bush's medicare drug program.

Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post

x129:  Over and over in his speeches, and in the debates, Obama said his "plan" would not raise taxes on the middle class.  That was one of his main selling points to his followers.

 

Of course he can't directly raise taxes himself. But I rather doubt the republicans will insist on raising taxes rather than reduce spending. The game of chicken, as you put it, will have to be played before December 31.

 

http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm

 

Don't know where you came up with "And cutting ~5% of the debt in not an insignificant number in my mind."  Our national debt is over $16 trillion dollars. Our 2012 deficit is $1.33 trillion.

post #764 of 786
Not mine but makes sense.

I'm not mad. I'm not bitter. Instead of replying to all 100 texts and emails regarding what I think I will just tell you how it is. We have an election process and the people have spoken. Although 49% to 49% looks like a country divided to me. Americans bought into the hope and change in 2008. We needed it after 9/11 and a war where we lost so much. We didn't get change. From Day 1 in office both sides made it clear they would not work together. Blame whoever you want but you only have one President. 4 years later we saw a campaign that ran on divide and hate. Rich is bad. It makes me sick. So after all the money, attack ads, and debates we are stuck with the same people running the Senate. The same people running the House and the same President? I agree we need to come together but Republicans you better not settle or change your values. It makes me sad to think we live in a society where it is ok to extend voting for NY and NJ because of a storm but we tell our soldiers there vote does not count because it was to late. Our voting system is broken when we have a party that goes into the inner city with buses and drags people out to vote that has no idea what they are voting for. We live in a country where 60% or more white people vote for Obama and we are racist but 96% of African Americans will vote for Obama and it is normal. I could go on and on. We have no accountability in this country. If you mess up then we have learned you just blame someone else. We witnessed that the past 4 years. I wonder who Obama will blame this term. Does he blame Obama 1.0? If you come from the school that everyone has to pay their fair share then fine. Take more of my money but if you want to take more from the people that already pay the most then shouldn't I care where my money is going. I can't stand all the posts where this country is done because of tonights election. I say BULL$%$$. Americans are better then that. Our brothers and sisters in our Military have given up too much to let then happen. Tonight's results only remind me that our country has slipped into a deeper state of dependence on government than I wanted to believe. Where the Goliath of government has grown so too has our dependency. We need to change our welfare and government assistance programs. We need to take care of our own but demand we stop this abuse of tax payer dollars. It's NOT ok to not work. It's not ok to collect unemployment and go on vacations. It's not ok to get a debit card and buy smokes and go drinking. Makes me sad that I see so many young people who just don't get it. Clueless. 50% of college grads can't find a job and yet they fall for the campaign rhetoric or maybe they need a break and living off Mom and Dad is cool. I hope as a country that we start electing officials who have our best interests. I'm just sad. We finally had a guy who was a moderate and could get us out of this mess and the American public was fooled by dividing our people and talking about Big Bird and Binders. I appreciate all the calls and texts. I will be fine. I'm grateful for my wife who understands what a work ethic is and will continue to raise our daughter with the values we share. I'm sad for our younger generation. I'm sad we elected a man who raised our debt so high and not once passed a budget and all we did was blame someone else. I will go upstairs and pick my daughter up and squeeze a little tighter and pray to god that we can one day have a fiscal government that understands you can't spend more then what you take in. Thank you Mitt Romney. I was proud to cast my vote for you. I was proud to campaign for you. You could and would have brought this country together. I hope our President magically turns back into the hope and change President and does what he said he would do the first time and I hope Republicans work with our President to make sure we do what is best for our people. Thank you to everyone who voted. I have lots of military family that have sacrificed a lot and too many of us take the privilege of voting for granted. Goodnight. God bless you and God Bless America!
post #765 of 786

I agree with your entire post, I'm all for a simpler tax code.  I cut your post short to keep focus on what the impact of the expired tax cuts would be, not to misrepresent you, I apologize if that's how it was taken.  None of this is directed at you but at those who don't see the expiration of those tax cuts as new taxes. 

 

I have heard many try to walk the tight rope (not you) stating that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not the same as raising taxes, imo they are.  It's just semantics, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire Obama may not be introducing new taxes (well the 3.8% surtax and .9% medicare tax to fund ObamaCare are new) the impact is small businesses and individuals will pay more money in taxes, thus reducing their net income by up to 10%. 

 

Those managing their own retirement funds will also be severely impacted by the Bush tax cuts expiring.  Having a stock portfolio is one of the few ways to have your money work for you, savings accounts at best offer a return of .5%.  Not everyone that owns stocks is Mitt Romney, since he seems to be the poster child to rally against maintaining capital gains taxes.  Anyone that's trying to build their retirement fund is would be looking at tax rates equivilent to their income rate on any gains from their retirement plan.  We're already concerned that Social Security won't cover the Gen X and Y'ers, pension plans are almost non-existent (except for goverment employees) so how do we expect these people to fund their retirements? 

 

In an economy that is moving at a snails pace having these tax cuts expire without any other relief is equivilent to smothering the recovery and job growth.  What you call it won't matter when we head into another recession. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Well, I think it is misleading to cut off my quote where you did - they need to make a deal. I hope that was clear.

 

My post was about strategy - let the Bush cuts expire, wipe the slate clean, and make a new deal retroactive to January 1; or do a deal before December 31.

 

I'd rather they do a deal beforehand so the markets will not flutter.

 

They've got to raise revenue and reduce spending, and they can in many ways

 

[Entitlement Reform - including motivating people to get off the dole, reducing social security payments for those in certain high income strata, reorganizing welfare and social programs to make them more efficient and reduce their spending, etc.

Reorganize the Government so it it motivated to spend less - how about bonuses to employees who save money or don't use up their budget?

Make Defense more efficient to reduce its budget - re-evaluate our Defense Strategy and where troops are situated

Tax Reform - simplify, simplify, simplify

 

Instead of raising personal income tax rates, I'd keep them as is, and reduce deductions

Have a smaller estate tax with low rates - and make it simpler. It is complex! I think Obama said he'd agree to a $3m exemption

Simplify the income tax and take out favored deductions

Lower Corporate Rates but take out "pet" deductions

Add back small tax increases - capital gains, medicare tax, surtax at low rates.]

 

Stimulate Business with temporary incentives such as investment tax credits and quicker depreciation.

 

Lots more

___

 

The point is make the tax system simpler and with lower rates, and reduce your spending, looking for ways to reduce it and make its programs more efficient. Keep the lobbyists out, use common and fiscal sense, and it can be done.


Edited by newtogolf - 11/9/12 at 9:19am
post #766 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

 

Those managing their own retirement funds will also be severely impacted by the Bush tax cuts expiring.  Having a stock portfolio is one of the few ways to have your money work for you, savings accounts at best offer a return of .5%.  Not everyone that owns stocks is Mitt Romney, since he seems to be the poster child to rally against maintaining capital gains taxes.  Anyone that's trying to build their retirement fund is would be looking at tax rates equivilent to their income rate on any gains from their retirement plan.  We're already concerned that Social Security won't cover the Gen X and Y'ers, pension plans are almost non-existent (except for goverment employees) so how do we expect these people to fund their retirements? 

 

In an economy that is moving at a snails pace having these tax cuts expire without any other relief is equivilent to smothering the recovery and job growth.  What you call it won't matter when we head into another recession. 

Agree -

 

As to retirement funds, pensions (other than government) have lost their relevance, profit sharing plans are iffy - to remedy the situation, the tax code should open up to allow us to place more money into tax-free retirement funds where there is no tax on capital gains. They could actually do it so the older you are, the more you are allowed to place into tax-free retirement funds.

post #767 of 786

The 401(k) contributions are already 17k (+k if your over 50) and you can still do a 5000 ira contribution(+1k for being over 50). Or if you a small business you can d 50k in your SEP-IRA.  If you are in the middle class you are going to be paying almost zero taxes on that money when it comes out. Given how few people come close to those limits, raising them doesn't seem like a big issue. You can save even more with Roths (15k in tax free money is different than 15k in tax deferred money) but for anyone not maxing out, I don't think Roths are a good idea. They maximize the best case but for retirement most of us should be more worried about the worst case. I bet Mitt wishes though that he could have opened an Roth IRA instead of IRA. Saving 50+ million in taxes and being able to pass it on to his heirs in very tax beneficical manner would have been sweet.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Agree -

 

As to retirement funds, pensions (other than government) have lost their relevance, profit sharing plans are iffy - to remedy the situation, the tax code should open up to allow us to place more money into tax-free retirement funds where there is no tax on capital gains. They could actually do it so the older you are, the more you are allowed to place into tax-free retirement funds.

post #768 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

80 billion is 5% of 1.4 trillion (actually a bit more but I don't have a calculator). It is a noticeable amount of money. For example it would pay for Bush's medicare drug program.

Totally agree.  (And I do have a calculator and using his numbers 80B and 1.33T ... you end up with 6.02%) c2_beer.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Although 49% to 49% looks like a country divided to me.

It's actually at 50.5% to 48% for Obama right now.  (Florida is still as yet uncalled, but since it's fairly close, it's not going to change those overall numbers much, if any)

 

Your point still holds true - that's pretty divided - but something should be said for obtaining a majority of the vote.

post #769 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Totally agree.  (And I do have a calculator and using his numbers 80B and 1.33T ... you end up with 6.02%) c2_beer.gif

 

It's actually at 50.5% to 48% for Obama right now.  (Florida is still as yet uncalled, but since it's fairly close, it's not going to change those overall numbers much, if any)

 

Your point still holds true - that's pretty divided - but something should be said for obtaining a majority of the vote.

 

I could give a sh** if it was 51-49 or 64-36.  You're never going to get rid of some of the ignorance in this country, and well-organized, unified ignorance by the extreme right doesn't make it any less ignorant.  The majority spoke, and the minority needs to heed the call for a balanced budget on the current administration's platform as decided by the people.  When they Republicans win back the Presidency and/or the Senate/House, they can explode the deficit with their agenda again.  Until then, they can be butt-hurt and complain their way to the middle.

post #770 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak4n6 View Post

 

Look Phil McGleno, you don't have to explicitly say ALL for it to be understood, understand? If I say, "Asian people can't drive", that does not mean it's just the ones that can't drive that can't drive...do you get it?  If I say, "Chinese people suck", that does not mean "Chinese people are more likely to suck", or "Only the sucky Chinese people suck", it means "Chinese people suck", and I am implicitly painting all Chinese with a broad brush. Do you get it yet? You show your bigotry through your language, and then backtrack and deny it.

 

Well said.  McGleno can pretend all he wants that he's not a bigot, and not the archetype "conservative" that is holding the Republican party hostage and preventing them from winning elections and expanding their electorate.  It's funny hearing a guy rant about percentages and demographics, when the party they represent enact policies specifically targeted to ensure those percentages and demographics remain the same, and then are shocked that those demographics vote against them and their bigotry.

 

Add to that, they continue their "47%" rhetoric by blaming them for their loss...with some idiotic, imbecilic, warped logic that the only reason they lost the election is because there are more "takers than makers" now.  Let them keep thinking that. a2_wink.gif

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Ummm, okay...

 

Statistics...

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

 

 

Facts are stubborn things.  It's unfortunate to me that people like McGleno represent the vocal portion of the Republican party.  There are TRUE Republican Conservatives out there that aren't bigots and truly are concerned with a balanced budget, but they can't get elected with their current base of constituents. 

post #771 of 786

So then we ALL agree.  No one can ever play too much golf. c2_beer.gif

post #772 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

So then we ALL agree.  No one can ever play too much golf. c2_beer.gif

At my age - I agree. I can't get too much golf. If I get in one-two rounds in one week, that's a great week!

 

As to some of these personal comments,

 

I try to let people know when discussing these topics, "it's not personal, it's politics."

 

Do not take this personally, and when someone insults you, turn the other cheek - no need to hit back. Just go Forward!

post #773 of 786
Oh bull bplewis. I'm not a bigot just because Im awre of the statistics.
93% of blacks voted for Obama. 74% of latinos. That's almost 30% of the electorate and so Romney had to win 63% of the rest of the vote (which has NEVER HAPPENED since FDR) and HE ALMOST DID. That's how bad Obama is doing. Thats not bigoted thats just the facts of the matter.

Republicans need to ditch the stupid religious angle that they adopt. It offends women, it offends those intelligent enough not to believe in a ghost with a grand plan, it offends gays. WHy should I care what two guys or gals who love each other do in their homes? I dont but the Republican party does. This isn't colonial times and theyre stuck back then with their religious bend to everything.

The republican party is seriously screwed up if they couldn't beat THIS president, with the four largest deficits (his best year being three times worse than the previous worst record), winning 63% notwithstanding.

You havent read things AT ALL if you think Im holding the republican party back or supporting the party. Give me a break. READ.

Id blow up the entire party system if I could but if I had to choose one party to blow up and rebuild from the ashes it would be the elephants because theyre in a serious hole if they couldn't beat THIS guy in THIS election. Smaller government, less religion influencing your policy. West Wing played the "dumb republican vs. the intelligent democrat" a little too much for my tastes but itw as probably closer than people are aware. Republicans are dumb and the democrats at least aren't bound by religion on anything and everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

Well said.  McGleno can pretend all he wants that he's not a bigot, and not the archetype "conservative" that is holding the Republican party hostage and preventing them from winning elections and expanding their electorate.  It's funny hearing a guy rant about percentages and demographics, when the party they represent enact policies specifically targeted to ensure those percentages and demographics remain the same, and then are shocked that those demographics vote against them and their bigotry.

Add to that, they continue their "47%" rhetoric by blaming them for their loss...with some idiotic, imbecilic, warped logic that the only reason they lost the election is because there are more "takers than makers" now.  Let them keep thinking that. a2_wink.gif

Facts are stubborn things.  It's unfortunate to me that people like McGleno represent the vocal portion of the Republican party.  There are TRUE Republican Conservatives out there that aren't bigots and truly are concerned with a balanced budget, but they can't get elected with their current base of constituents. 

Ha, forward. We are heading downward, so forward is farther down into the hole weve dug for ourselves. GREAT! "Forward" apparently means a negative campaign policy. Attack Romney the man, not his policies or ideas. ROmney is a bad person, you shouldnt vote for him. Great. More negativity in politics. because it works! Forward - downward and more negative! WOOOOOOO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Do not take this personally, and when someone insults you, turn the other cheek - no need to hit back. Just go Forward!
post #774 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Oh bull bplewis. I'm not a bigot just because Im awre of the statistics.
93% of blacks voted for Obama. 74% of latinos. That's almost 30% of the electorate and so Romney had to win 63% of the rest of the vote (which has NEVER HAPPENED since FDR) and HE ALMOST DID. That's how bad Obama is doing. Thats not bigoted thats just the facts of the matter.
Republicans need to ditch the stupid religious angle that they adopt
The republican party is seriously screwed up if they couldn't beat THIS president, with the four largest deficits (his best year being three times worse than the previous worst record), winning 63% notwithstanding.
You havent read things AT ALL if you think Im holding the republican party back or supporting the party. Give me a break. READ.
Id blow up the entire party system if I could but if I had to choose one party to blow up and rebuild from the ashes it would be the elephants because theyre in a serious hole if they couldn't beat THIS guy in THIS election. Smaller government, less religion influencing your policy. West Wing played the "dumb republican vs. the intelligent democrat" a little too much for my tastes but itw as probably closer than people are aware. Republicans are dumb and the democrats at least aren't bound by religion on anything and everything.
Ha, forward. We are heading downward, so forward is farther down into the hole weve dug for ourselves. GREAT! "Forward" apparently means a negative campaign policy. Attack Romney the man, not his policies or ideas. ROmney is a bad person, you shouldnt vote for him. Great. More negativity in politics. because it works! Forward - downward and more negative! WOOOOOOO

You took my quote and made it entirely political - weird.

 

It was meant to say, there is no need to insult - it's not personal, it's politics, so just go forward when responding.

 

We all have internet personalities. Good luck to you.

 

As to your statements - let's be real as to the popular vote. There are many states where Obama and Romney did not even campaign. For example, I think Texas ended up about 58-42 for Romney. But the Prez did no campaigning here. I'm surprised he got 42%. If he would have done any campaigning or posted an active ad campaign, his numbers would have increased. You could say the same for Romney in California, for example. My point is - the popular vote is not the objective, and its results may be misleading. Swing states are the objective and that is where Obama spent his money - wisely.

 

But I am curious. Why seemingly denigrate Obama's electorate? Don't Latino, Black and Asian Votes count as much as White Votes? Asians went for Obama about 74% - and you don't find them on welfare rolls. 

 

Our electorate is changing - it is about values - and Latinos and Asians don't seem to have a problem with more government, as well as Blacks, whereas old white people have more of an issue with it. The argument for smaller federal gov't worked in the '80's but it does not resonate now, and was not a reality in the 80s. What we're hearing the final roar of a white population yearning for the good old days - but that is not reality. Reality is today.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
This thread is locked  
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Does President Obama play too much Golf?