Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 14

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I'm with you,

 

I believe we (humans) have caused the release of more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  What I question is the reality of global warming, meaning is it real or is the climate cyclical and we're currently experiencing a period of higher temperatures or some other natural phenomenon that we don't comprehend fully yet.  Also given all the natural producers of green house gases what effect will eliminating the use of fossil fuels from vehicles have on it overall when you factor in the greenhouse gases released in the production of electricity? 

T

Given that the earth has gone through several climatic changes over its lifetime and many of those occurred millions of years before the industrial revolution, the highlighted comment is very valid. 

Interestingly, the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor and three of the top five contain oxygen as a molecular component.  Ironically, the one member of that top five that doesn't contain oxygen is methane, which is one of the most common organic compounds on earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I agree with you, one should question everything.  The second piece to that advice is you need to listen to the full answer, not just the parts you want to pull out of it. 

 

There are potentially many causes of global warming that include; volcanos, forest fires, elimination of woodlands, gasoline for cars, diesel fuel for trucks and locomotives, heating oil, natural gas, coal, increase in population, etc.   There is some uncertainty with regards to how much the additional impact of human based greenhouse gases has.   The top 2 producers of greenhouse gases from humans is

1) Production of electricity - 33%

2) Transportation (gasoline and diesel) - 25%.

 

So this administration wants to invest our money into electric cars that will increase the demand for electricity (thus increasing the amount of greenhouse gases generated from electric production) while reducing the greenhouse gases from cars.  Then there's the problem of disposing of the batteries.  Seems science hasn't figured it all out yet.

 

NEED to listen to ?

I do not NEED to listen to anything ... I choose to listen. You don't NEED to listen but you can choose to listen. Do what you want, and I'll do what I want. 

Control issues?

I typically don't play the game you accuse me of playing.

But what the hell ... I didn't want to discuss politics, I attempted to point to Bloomberg and his endorsement decision ... not other issues. So you're correct in that I did not want to discuss politics or global warming - other than to say science has validity and I think it's conservative to reduce our footprint when we don't know the answers. The other stuff I chose to ignore because it was not an issue to me.

The member discussing global warming made some good points, did not disagree with him, but it was not my intention to discuss taxes, global warming, etc.

Y'all go at it if you like.

You choose.

Phil is a golfin' god ... on the Champions Tour when he gets there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

What I question is the reality of global warming, meaning is it real or is the climate cyclical and we're currently experiencing a period of higher temperatures or some other natural phenomenon that we don't comprehend fully yet.  Also given all the natural producers of green house gases what effect will eliminating the use of fossil fuels from vehicles have on it overall when you factor in the greenhouse gases released in the production of electricity? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

Given that the earth has gone through several climatic changes over its lifetime and many of those occurred millions of years before the industrial revolution, the highlighted comment is very valid.

Of course, it's valid.  I totally agree as well.  Seems like we could all admit that we don't know one way or the other for sure.  What I don't get, however, is that if we don't know, then why should that be a green light to tear the earth a new one?  Seems like the prudent measure, until it's 100% proven that our actions have zero bearing on climate change (if that happens, I say eff it, lets party), is to assume we are part of the problem and to do what we think we can to curb it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

 

 

I've stood in line behind people paying for their groceries with food stamps.    Many of them are eating better than I am and from the looks of their waistlines, they have been for quite some time.   Your view of the living conditions of those being subsidized by our government smacks of the arrogance and ignorance you accused him of.

 

Yet again, you refer to a changing political tide as if it were a permanent thing.   It is not.   But again, IF you really are a history professor, you already know that.   Perhaps you've forgotten.   So maybe I should refresh your memory a bit.  In 1972, Richard Nixon carried 49 states (the lone exception was Massachusetts).   He collected 23% more of the popular vote and his electoral victory was by over 500 votes.  It was one of the top 5 most lopsided Presidential elections in history.    By contrast, Obama won this election by winning 26 states, collected  4% more of the popular vote and 126 more electoral votes.   So by comparison, Obama's purported landslide was nothing when viewed next to Nixon's. 

 

Watergate not withstanding, using your assertion that a large electoral college victory is a certain indication of the death of a political party, there should not have been a Democratic party in existence to contend with during the next election cycle.  Yet since 1972 we have elected 6 different Presidents, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Ford was not elected to the Presidency).   So I find your prediction to be both premature and most likely erroneous.  

 

I seriously hope you don't lecture on politics since you seem to have a poor understanding of just how the political winds of this country change from election cycle to election cycle.  But if you do, I hope you do a much better job of hiding your political leanings when lecturing students than you have expressed here.   You are certainly entitled to your own political biases but it is NOT the job of a teacher/professor to impart their particular biases onto their students.   Rather it is their job to educate the students to both sides of the political picture without interjecting their own opinions and biases and allow their students to make up their own minds which side they support.

You apparently are either ignorant of or refuse to acknowledge what even the handful of remaining moderate Republicans admit: the changing demographics in American society spell disaster for the GOP moving forward as they have consistently alienated and essentially lost ALL of the fastest growing groups in our society: Latinos arer the fastest growing group and are overwhelmingly registering and voting Democratic, Women are already the majority and also vote Dem due to on-going GOP war against women and African Americans have long been a rock solid base of the Democratic party all the more so now with the recent choreographed GOP efforts at voter suppression.......add to this the LGBT community and the young and its sayonara Grand Old White Guys Party....Colin Powell has the courage to speak the truth to his party....Even Jeb Bush has done so  but the hard liner teaparty extremists still think that its about dogmatic extremism and ideological purity over effective outreach....so go right ahead and try to make politics-as -subtraction work....fact is politics is a game of addition -not subtraction and the present GOP demographic base fits neatly into a phone booth....i.e. Romney won the white vote rather decisively yet was trounced in the electoral college and lost the popular vote as well...this trend insures that there will be no presidential election victories for Republicans moving forward and that is precisely why the GOP is trying to rig the game yet again by attempting to remove the traditional "winner -take -all" state laws regarding awarding the electoral college votes....Virginia is leading this most recent assault on Democracy....

Quote:

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies 

... the hard liner teaparty extremists still think that its about dogmatic extremism and ideological purity over effective outreach....so go right ahead and try to make politics-as -subtraction work....fact is politics is a game of addition -not subtraction and the present GOP demographic base fits neatly into a phone booth....

The GOP seems to have become essentially the party of the religious right ... a trend that began with the 'moral majority' movement in the 80s.

John Dean (yup ... that John Dean) has quite a bit to say about this shift.

An interesting read on the subject ...http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Quote:

Originally Posted by stogiesnbogies 

You apparently are either ignorant of or refuse to acknowledge what even the handful of remaining moderate Republicans admit: the changing demographics in American society spell disaster for the GOP moving forward as they have consistently alienated and essentially lost ALL of the fastest growing groups in our society: Latinos arer the fastest growing group and are overwhelmingly registering and voting Democratic, Women are already the majority and also vote Dem due to on-going GOP war against women and African Americans have long been a rock solid base of the Democratic party all the more so now with the recent choreographed GOP efforts at voter suppression.......add to this the LGBT community and the young and its sayonara Grand Old White Guys Party....Colin Powell has the courage to speak the truth to his party....Even Jeb Bush has done so  but the hard liner teaparty extremists still think that its about dogmatic extremism and ideological purity over effective outreach....so go right ahead and try to make politics-as -subtraction work....fact is politics is a game of addition -not subtraction and the present GOP demographic base fits neatly into a phone booth....i.e. Romney won the white vote rather decisively yet was trounced in the electoral college and lost the popular vote as well...this trend insures that there will be no presidential election victories for Republicans moving forward and that is precisely why the GOP is trying to rig the game yet again by attempting to remove the traditional "winner -take -all" state laws regarding awarding the electoral college votes....Virginia is leading this most recent assault on Democracy....

Clearly, you haven't really studied the ebbs and flows of American politics much.   Odd, since you proclaimed yourself a professor of American History.    The internal bickering within the Republican party today is no different than the internal bickering that went on within the Democratic party in the mid-80's (Does the Democratic Leadership Council ring any bells for you?), we just didn't have easy access to the internet to read about it.    The Democratic party survived that time and the Republican party most likely will survive this one too.   Will that require Republicans to shift toward the center?   It very well may, just as Democrats shifted toward the center in the 80's.  

Furthermore, Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives even as Obama won re-election, as well as holding 60% of Governorships and hold the majority in more state legislatures than Democrats. So while Democrats hold the Presidency and the Senate, they don't exactly have a stranglehold on American politics nationwide.

So, I restate my assertion that your predicted demise of the Republican party is premature and most likely erroneous.  We won't really know for sure for several years to come (remembering that George H.W. Bush rode Reagan's coattails into the Oval Office).   In the end, History will prove one of us correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

T

Given that the earth has gone through several climatic changes over its lifetime and many of those occurred millions of years before the industrial revolution, the highlighted comment is very valid. 

 

Interestingly, the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor and three of the top five contain oxygen as a molecular component.  Ironically, the one member of that top five that doesn't contain oxygen is methane, which is one of the most common organic compounds on earth.

People who do not believe in global warming do that because it makes them feel comfortable - not because it is fact. It happens over and over again, with evolution, global warming, more guns make you safer etc. If a scientific fact doesn't fit into your narrow world view, then just find some pseudo-science that is created to support your view and the argument is over.

I hate to break it to you, but Global warming is real and caused by humans, more guns means more people get killed and Evolution is not a theory, but a fact. Facts.. so get over it.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

 

 

Furthermore, Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives 

It's called gerrymandering.

Control the State Legislature at the right time and that party gets to redraw Congressional Districts to that Party's advantage.

Politics sucks... when it's about raw power, and not governing together.

People don't believe in Global Warming because they have a micro view of the world, and they believe if they accept one thing the other party does it means there whole ideology is flipped on its head. 

Evolution is a whole different story. Its impossible to disprove a god. Because if god is outside our spectrum, basically in science, out side the the system, then it would be impossible to prove God or not. Just because something like evolution is proved, doesn't mean it disproves God, it could just mean is a tool used by God and we are just to ignorant to accept that. So this is why i don't really have a hard line on God, because i can't disprove or prove, because the basic concept of God can not be tested in normal science. All you have to do is say, "God created science, and we are discovering his methods of the world" So now no matter what you can't disprove god, even with accepting evolution or not. This goes back to the fact people just don't want to change there views they had for a long time, because they fear there whole thinking will be wrong, which it isn't. One thing does not discount all others. The world isn't that black and white. 

Yep, this is why when people on political talk shows say, "Well Obama has 50% favorable rating, and Bainer has 30%, he should use that to his advantage", well that is a national poll, and Bainer only has to be concerned with his 2.3% population he represents, in that sample, he might be 60% favorable. 

So yea, the president is always in a tougher spot, he can pressure people who have seats in contested areas, but in locked up republican or democrat, that is mute. 

Honestly the problem is, most people want government to work like the modern world, fast paced. It wasn't meant to be fast, it was meant to be a slow thoughtful process. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 

 

 

 

Evolution is a whole different story. Its impossible to disprove a god. Because if god is outside our spectrum, basically in science, out side the the system, then it would be impossible to prove God or not. Just because something like evolution is proved, doesn't mean it disproves God, it could just mean is a tool used by God and we are just to ignorant to accept that. So this is why i don't really have a hard line on God, because i can't disprove or prove, because the basic concept of God can not be tested in normal science. All you have to do is say, "God created science, and we are discovering his methods of the world" So now no matter what you can't disprove god, even with accepting evolution or not. This goes back to the fact people just don't want to change there views they had for a long time, because they fear there whole thinking will be wrong, which it isn't. One thing does not discount all others. The world isn't that black and white. 

 

 

 

 

 

Havng veered into a question of the existence of God, I predict this thread goes to 50 pages.

Look what you've done Phil!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 

.... Its absurd to live in California, just absurd. The only city in California i would possibly live in is San Francisco, even then i would live near Napa Valley. Other than that, it would be absurd to deal with those taxes if you have the mobility to move. ...

No offense taken ... in case you were wondering.

Back in the '90's, Californians were leaving in droves.  Many showed up in Colorado, a situation which we Coloradans deplored, because they were in large part responsible for rocketing housing prices in the Denver area.  They sell an average house in an average neighborhood in California for enough to buy an upscale home in a gated community in Colorado.  Suddenly young Coloradans can't afford to live in their home state.  The house my wife and I bought in 1993 doubled in appraised value in 3 years.  Great for us, but a terrible situation for a young couple trying to buy a first home.  When an outside force influences such a dramatic change, it takes much longer for earnings to catch up.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

I get his argument, I just don't really like the "tone."  The longing for the days of a "real" lower class.

 

I don't think he was "longing for the days of a real lower class."  I think he was longing for the days of a lower class that tried hard to better themselves.

This is a huge problem.  When you can afford to buy a nice TV, car, smartphone, etc. on the public dole, what incentive is there to do anything to change that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81 

Here is a very real scenario.  Citizen makes X amount of dollars.  Based on his family size he qualifies for quite a few government programs.  Citizen does well at work, so his boss gives him a 2.50 dollar an hour raise.  This amount puts him over the threshold for the government programs.  With the raise, his income is higher, but now he has to buy certain items and services that he previously got for free.  The raise actually gives his household a net loss.  What incentive does the worker have to improve and make more money?

Pride?  A sense of self worth?

Right.   Dream on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

Maybe CA is different from NY but I don't consider someone with a big screen television, cell phone, and late model car poor, but take a walk down some of the "poverty stricken" areas of Long Island and that's what you'll see, house after house, block after block.   Are there some really poor people out there, yes, but why does the "left" believe that we're doing them any long term good by handing them a check?  Shouldn't we be focused on getting them to be self sufficient rather than keeping them at a level slightly above poverty so we can feel better about ourselves?  I'd rather send these people to a trade school or even college and require they get good grades than just hand them a check for doing absolutely nothing. 

 

IMO, there should be zero parasites on the gravy train.  If they collect a check and aren't disabled they should be doing something for the money. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

I don't see people on the "right" ever being satisfied that enough "parasites are off the gravy train" for this to ever be the case.  (I don't like the terms "right" and "left" but didn't know what else to say there)

The number of parasites supported by my taxes should be zero.  If they want to get into training programs to become productive members of society, I can back that.  I can't abide giving handouts to people who won't try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefty-Golfer 

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever, to 46 million people.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves."

 

Thus ends today's lesson in irony.

Perfect!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60 

"Proof" of man's invovlement in global warming is about as certain as the "proof" a few years ago that eating eggs causes a rise in human cholesterol.   Today, that is being disputed.

 

What is known is that the sun is expanding and this expansion is resulting in the earth being in closer proximity to the sun.   As our distance from the sun shrinks, the sun's heat affects the earth's weather, and as a resulte unusual weather patterns emerge.  That heat also causes the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise, the glacier pack to melt and oceans to evaporate.  (Sounds alot like what we refer to as global warming, doesn't it?)

 

Approximately a billion years from now, the earth's proximity to the sun will be close enough that the heat from the sun will burn up the CO2 in our air.  Since plant life requires CO2 inorder to survive, plant life will cease to exist at that time.   We need oxygen to breathe and the main source of our atmosphere's oxygen is derived from oxygenic photosnythesis which occurs in plants.   As a result, humans will also cease to exist.    

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

C'mon, everyone knows global warming is caused by mans use of fossil fuels, that's why the current government is investing billions of taxpayer dollars into electric car companies that go bankrupt.   

So what if we waste all of our tax dollars on energy efficient cars ... we're all gonna be dead in a billion years anyway. ;)

Since when are electric cars "energy efficient".  Just because they don't pollute directly, that doesn't make them cleaner.  That power has to come from somewhere, and in much of the country, they burn coal to generate it.  Hybrids are something of a joke too.  They are only truly efficient when stuck in bumper to bumper, stop and go traffic.  The rest of the time they are just a gasoline engine with the added load of generating electricity to keep those big batteries charged up (batteries with a limited lifespan, which then have to be disposed of as toxic waste).  If you don't drive in city traffic, a modern 4 cylinder Honda Civic or equivalent is generally more efficient, yet the government doesn't offer that great subsidy for a plain old piston engine car.  As long as electric and hybrid vehicles have to be subsidized to encourage their use, it's apparent that a majority of Americans don't buy into the need for them.

As for global warming, no intelligent person would argue that human activity doesn't make some contribution to the issue, but to say that global warming is caused by human action is shortsighted, and just plain wrong.  Warming and cooling on a global scale has been a natural cycle for a few billion years.  To think that what we are seeing now is primarily caused by us is flying in the face of geologic evidence.  Even the experts can't agree on, or even quantify, how much people contribute to the phenomenon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

Back in the '90's, Californians were leaving in droves.  Many showed up in Colorado, a situation which we Coloradans deplored, because they were in large part responsible for rocketing housing prices in the Denver area.  They sell an average house in an average neighborhood in California for enough to buy an upscale home in a gated community in Colorado.  Suddenly young Coloradans can't afford to live in their home state.  The house my wife and I bought in 1993 doubled in appraised value in 3 years.  Great for us, but a terrible situation for a young couple trying to buy a first home.  When an outside force influences such a dramatic change, it takes much longer for earnings to catch up.  

 

 

 

 

This is a huge problem.  When you can afford to buy a nice TV, car, smartphone, etc. on the public dole, what incentive is there to do anything to change that?

 

 

Right.   Dream on.

 

 

The number of parasites supported by my taxes should be zero.  If they want to get into training programs to become productive members of society, I can back that.  I can't abide giving handouts to people who won't try.

 

 

Perfect!  

 

 

Since when are electric cars "energy efficient".  Just because they don't pollute directly, that doesn't make them cleaner.  That power has to come from somewhere, and in much of the country, they burn coal to generate it.  Hybrids are something of a joke too.  They are only truly efficient when stuck in bumper to bumper, stop and go traffic.  The rest of the time they are just a gasoline engine with the added load of generating electricity to keep those big batteries charged up (batteries with a limited lifespan, which then have to be disposed of as toxic waste).  If you don't drive in city traffic, a modern 4 cylinder Honda Civic or equivalent is generally more efficient, yet the government doesn't offer that great subsidy for a plain old piston engine car.  As long as electric and hybrid vehicles have to be subsidized to encourage their use, it's apparent that a majority of Americans don't buy into the need for them.

 

As for global warming, no intelligent person would argue that human activity doesn't make some contribution to the issue, but to say that global warming is caused by human action is shortsighted, and just plain wrong.  Warming and cooling on a global scale has been a natural cycle for a few billion years.  To think that what we are seeing now is primarily caused by us is flying in the face of geologic evidence.  Even the experts can't agree on, or even quantify, how much people contribute to the phenomenon.

Great logical post...get ready for libs and democrats to tell you how dumb you are!.

This thread may be taking a dark direction.

Why don't we be like Phil and say, this is not the forum to discuss politics. To paraphrase, "Instead of being an idiot and compounding my mistake, I'm going to wedge it out to the fairway and not talk politics."

Phil is sometimes a golfin' god, and sometimes, a wise man.

That's so true, i went out to eat with my mom at a local place, just after this huge wind storm took out a ton of power. the place was pretty empty and the manager stopped to ask us how our meal was. Well we got to talking and he said he was from California, he said he wouldn't have dreamed of ever owning a two story house with the amount of land he has in California, that he does now in Ohio. He got this house for like 250K, that would be impossible in California. 

Sorry, i get side tracked sometimes, it was more of a comment on how stupid it is to talk about religion because the arguments are impossible to win :p 

But we all know we have to play Bubba Golf, there is no wedging out into the fairway, there's the 45 yard hook wedge to the green ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by benredik 

 

People who do not believe in global warming do that because it makes them feel comfortable - not because it is fact.

 

 

I hate to break it to you, but Global warming is real and caused by humans, more guns means more people get killed and Evolution is not a theory, but a fact. Facts.. so get over it.
 

 

People call into question the Alarmist's view on Global Warming because some of the data was doctored. If all of the Global Warming concerns were truly due to man, why was there a need to inflate figures or draw certain conclusions that failed to live up to scrutiny?

 

Do I believe in Global Warming? Well, I guess no if you want to lay it all at the feet of mankind. We have 160 years of weather data and can't possibly know for certain what is occurring Globally isn't a cycle of this planet.

 

And more guns = more dead people? So if there was an armed guard in that Connecticut school or in that Colorado theatre there would be even more deaths? Uh........okay. Statistics bear out that states with concealed weapons carry laws actually decrease violent crimes.

 

If you rely solely on those who stand to gain or stay employed as they chase the Global Warming monster, then you need to reevaluate your beliefs. And if people want to kill people, they'll use whatever they can.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

 

As for global warming, no intelligent person would argue that human activity doesn't make some contribution to the issue, but to say that global warming is caused by human action is shortsighted, and just plain wrong.  Warming and cooling on a global scale has been a natural cycle for a few billion years.  To think that what we are seeing now is primarily caused by us is flying in the face of geologic evidence.  Even the experts can't agree on, or even quantify, how much people contribute to the phenomenon.

Outstanding post.

/global warming discussion.

Phil needs to get w/ Mitt Romney to discover how to bring that rate down to 14%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Martin 

Phil needs to get w/ Mitt Romney to discover how to bring that rate down to 14%

Mitt Who?

Do i believe in global warming, yes, is it as bad as people think, probably not. Here's why, we know that there was global warming, naturally occuring back when the Dino's were around, this was due to large volcanic activity. Our volcanic activity is very low compared to that time. So we can take into consideration that something has to be causing the ice to melt. Its scientific fact that ice melts at a certain temperature, and if you average above it, you'll get less ice. You can not denounce this fact, and satellite images over the past decade have proven the ice caps are melting. Is this a natural heating of the earth, probably, people don't realize we had what is known as the "Little Ice Age", that occured from the middle 19th century into the early 20th century. So of course we are going to have warmer temperatures. So my conclusion, we are both naturally warming and accelerating that naturally warming. We are not the total cause, but we are a factor. What does this mean for the future, i am buying real estate further inland, so when we loose part of the coast line i will have prime location for a vacation home :p 

There was an article today about this, the reason why Mitt pays a low rate is because all his money is tied up in wealth, not income. Meaning he owns real estate, growth stocks, ect.. That and his income comes from capital gains as well, he can pay a much smaller tax rate. Note, that 14% is federal tax rate, does not include state tax, entitlement taxes, local taxes... So that is a bit misguided to think he just pays such a small piece..