Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Joakim

I don't see anything incorrect with your statements and I agree I don't want to get into the highlighted. I'm more concerned with his Federal Budget plans and other platform issues.

Take a look at this article and ask yourself if an individual running for the highest office in the land should involve himself in such investments.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Take a look at this article and ask yourself if an individual running for the highest office in the land should involve himself in such investments.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

Many people aren't familiar with the details of Bain's business practices. Since Romney is a Bain investor and managed it, take a look. From the article at a time when Mitt managed Bain. Does this show the type of empathy or practice you want in a President?

"In 1994, Bain bought Dade International , a medical-diagnostics company, then added the medical-diagnostics division of DuPont in 1996 and a German medical-testing company called Behring in 1997. Former Dade president Bob Brightfelt says the operation started well: the Bain managers were “pretty smart guys,” he recalls, and they did well cutting out overlap, and exploiting synergies.

Then brutal cost cutting began. Bain cut R&D; spending to an average of 8 percent of sales, a little more than half what its competitors were doing. Cindy Hewitt, Dade’s human-resources manager, remembers how the firm closed a Puerto Rico plant in 1998, a year after harvesting $7.1 million in local tax breaks aimed at job creation , and relocated some staff to Miami, then the company’s most profitable plant. Based on re­a­ssur­ances she had received from her superiors, she told those uprooting themselves from Puerto Rico that their jobs in Miami were safe for now—but then Bain closed the Miami plant. “Whether you want to call it misled, or lied, or manipulated, I do not believe they provided full information about what discussions were under way,” she says. “I would never want to be part of even unintentionally treating people so poorly.”

Bain engaged in startling penny-pinching with the laid-off employees. Their contracts stipulated that if they left early they would have to pay back the costs of relocating to Miami—but in spite of all that Dade had done to them, it refused to release the employees from this clause. “They said they would go after them for that money if they left before Bain was finished with them,” Hewitt recalls. Not only that, but the company declined to give workers their severance pay in lump sums to help them fund their return home.

In 1999, generous pensions were converted into less generous benefits, wages were cut, and more staff members were laid off. Some employees contacted Norman Stein, then the director of the pension-counseling clinic at the University of Alabama law school, with a view to challenging the conversions. Stein says the employees were “ extraordinarily nervou s,” so fearful, in fact, that they refused to let lawyers even make copies of pension documents. “I have been dealing with pensions issues for over 25 years and I never saw anything like this,” recalls Stein. The spooked employees did not go to court . Stein says that, while breaking pension contracts like this was not unheard of, the practice at that time was “questionable,” adding that Dade may have saved $10 to $40 million from converting its pensions.

The beauty—or savagery—of leverage is that it can magnify any and all cash-flow boosts, such as this one. T ake $10 to $40 million squeezed from a pension pot, then use that to create new, rosier financial projections to borrow several times that amount, and then pay yourself a big special dividend from the borrowed funds, many times the size of the pension savings. That is just what Bain Capital did: the same month it converted the pensions, it created new financial projections as a basis to borrow an extra $421 million—from which Bain, its co-investor Goldman Sachs, and top Dade management extracted $365 million in dividends. According to Kosman, “Bain and Goldman—after putting down only $85 million … made out like bandits—a $280 million profit.” Dade’s debt rose to more than $870 million. Romney had left operational management of Bain that year, though his disclosures show that he owned 16.5 percent of the Bain partnership responsible for the Dade investment until at least 2001.

Quite soon, however, a fragile Dade faced adverse conditions in the currency markets, and it had to start in effect cannibalizing itself, cutting into the core of its business. It filed for bankruptcy in August 2002 and Bain Capital departed. When Dade emerged from bankruptcy, its new owners invested in long-term R&D;, and it flourished again.

Nor was this an isolated incident: Kosman lists five other “formerly healthy” companies—Stage Stores, Ampad, GS Technologies, Details, and KB Toys—Bain helped drive into bankruptcy, while making big profits.

[David in FL]

Take a look at this article and ask yourself if an individual running for the highest office in the land should involve himself in such investments.  [URL=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts]http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts[/URL]

The final conclusion of the article is "that it kind of looks tacky"..... .....and that he should err on the side of over-paying his taxes. Good grief. The good news is, as silly as this stuff is, it's all the left has to hang their hat on.

[x129]

He also made 20 million which I am guessing is more than you will make the rest of your life.  Personally I don't think it is fair (fair is different than legal) that I pay twice the tax rate he does despite making 1/10th as much.   It should be noted that bunching the top 1% in with the top .1% is a bit unfair to the 1%. They are 2 distinct classes of individuals. The 1% is made up of a lot of small bussiness and professionals (doctors) who are paying 30% income taxes on their income. The top .1% is made up of mainly (there are exceptions) people that make their money selling stocks (either as wall street guys or as ceos selling stock in companies they run) who pay 15%.

Some of the offshore stuff is overstated. Bain has to have funds in the Cayman islands. If they host the funds in the US, it is hard for them to get foreign investors because of US tax laws. On the other hand Mitts Swiss bank account which he took amnesty in 2009 is something else.  One is a legit business move. The other was just tax fraud.

Originally Posted by teamroper60

The man paid almost $2 million in taxes last year.  That's more  money than I will make (let alone pay in taxes) in the remainder of my life.   So I guess the definition of "such little tax" is a matter of perspective...

Putting money in off shore accounts has been a problem for a very long time.   When I was a kid, I remember people complaining about others putting money in off shore accounts.   I'm in my 50's now, so that clearly goes back to well before either Bush took office.    However, as long as he is playing by the rules, I don't see it as wrong.   In fact, just the opposite.   I see it as a smart move, made within the rules as they exist (whether you agree with those rules or not is a matter for another debate).

Frankly, considering that every dollar collected by the federal government actually came from taxpayers and I happen to be a taxpayer, those federal dollars happen to be mine (and yours).   Personally, I want somebody who is well versed in how to get the most out of that money to be the guy holding the purse strings.  Just my opinion and yours may vary.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

The final conclusion of the article is "that it kind of looks tacky".....

.....and that he should err on the side of over-paying his taxes.

Good grief.

The good news is, as silly as this stuff is, it's all the left has to hang their hat on.

1.  No -

The point to which I was referring was to look at his business practices. His business practices paint him as an unethical bully, which by the way, the story of his teen years in which he physically held down a student because he was "different" and cut the guy's hair, shows that Mitts remain, at heart, a bully. He showed it growing up, he showed it at Bain, and he is showing it in his doubling down on lies during the campaign. Caught in "pants on fire" lies, he doubles down. Trust Mitt?

2. This brings me to your second point about this is ALL the "left" can hang its hat on.

Bullshit.

(Sidenote: I guess the left is the 53% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008)

We only know Mitt as a shape shifter who has denounced his earlier moderate positions for the last 6 years. When he figured out he might run for President while Governor, he started going right and hasn't stopped. Pro-Choice? Health Care? Climate Change? Foahgdeddeaboutit.  Mitt has shape shifted so many times that we don't know who he is. Mitt talks in general platitudes, not detail. Bottom Line: We don't know Mitt. He changes his message depending on his audience. Mitt is a salesman.

Millions of people can scream lower taxes, less government, move everything to the private sector, in business we trust, etc.

But once the question is asked, How are you going to do it? and What are you going to cut? - you get the blank stare.

When independent studies show his plan won't work or his theories are false*, his surrogates stall a report or he gives a non-answer and a blank stare.

I don't want a blank stare.

I want a President.

___

* Senate Republicans stalled a report from an independent tax group which stated there is no correlation between tax rates and economic activity, i.e. low individual tax rates do not result in more economic activity, which is a Romney slogan...

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

The good news is, as silly as this stuff is, it's all the left has to hang their hat on.

I think you are confused about what is a "leftist."

if you want to read a leftist view, take a gander. This is a leftist view. Outrageous, angry, and funny yet sad (as long as you've followed the last 4 years and the Romney campaign).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/02/author-terry-mcmillan-on-why-mitt-romney-is-the-wrong-man-for-america.html

From day one of the Obama administration, Republicans agreed not to support any legislation he proposed that would have improved the economy, especially the Jobs Bill, which would have created almost 2 million jobs. Their goal was to make the president look ineffective, while their inaction and filibusters should be seen for what it was: racist, as well as treasonous for allowing our country to nearly go bankrupt just to make their point. They didn’t mind when Bush was spending trillions on wars, did they? In their quest to embarrass and humiliate the president, Republicans have harmed our country.

I’m so glad the Times, along with many other news organizations, is able to see through Mitt Romney as well as the B-movie performances he relies on to fool his base. Even a fifth-grader should be able to see clearly what those truths are: Mitt Romney is a phony, arrogant, dishonest, manipulative, pompous, elitist human being who lacks genuine compassion, and, as a result, is ill-equipped to run the United States of America.

He lies about things a presidential hopeful shouldn’t be lying about . Three of my favs: his bogus tax policy, Medicaid, and, the biggest of all: that he’s a magician and can create 12 million jobs in four years! We’re talking about affecting 320 million peoples’ lives (less that 1%). Employees—not corporations—are people. And yet Mitt seems to have it twisted. He would turn this country into even more of an oligarchy because he would be indebted to his plutocrat friends who’ve paid for him to buy this election—so that they, like Mitt, won’t have to pay more in taxes, if any.

There also is another major truth about Romney that no woman in her right mind should ignore. He seems downright excited about having the power to throw women off the bridge and setting us back 40 years. Mitt and his posse—Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and now Richard Mourdock (along with 13 other white male senators and even two females)—have decided to use “big government” to impose their religious beliefs on us. “Life is a gift from God,” Mourdock said. Rape isn’t, Richard. No one except the victim of rape should have the right to decide how he or she handles the emotional, psychological, and physical effects of it.

Church and state are supposed to be separate. Elected officials should not be allowed to use the Senate, the House of Representatives, and especially the White House as a platform from which to impose their religious beliefs on women. Period. I’d really like to know why they are so preoccupied with what women do with their bodies.

In his willingness to “expose” his policies affecting women, Romney has made it clear that he wants to eliminate Planned Parenthood and repeal Roe v. Wade and yet he has not been as forthcoming when it comes to releasing his taxes. (Even a 3-year old would know he’s hiding something that would make us see how slick he really is.)

All these men have egos the size of the moon and as a result have OD’d on self-aggrandizement. They need to be stopped from destroying what many who came before us fought for. These men seem intimidated by women, mostly our ability to do the jobs they assumed were meant only for them, and even more: our brilliance and our new power.

These folks have made it crystal clear why they resent the president’s achievements. Be done with them.

They are jealous of our African-American president, which is why they’ve gone to such extremes to roll back the clock to the days when they ruled. This is why Republicans have done everything possible to pass laws to suppress the vote: they are losing their grip. This Club they’re obviously honorary members of is one where honesty, dignity, and fair play take a backseat to winning at all costs, and they feel not one ounce of shame when their tactics are exposed. They need to get over themselves, the past, and stop trying to control everybody and everything, at everyone’s expense but their own.

I have the utmost respect for President Obama and wonder how he’s been able to tolerate the disdain, cruelty, disrespect, and overt racial attacks on his character and his ethnicity, coming from those who’ve been unwilling to give him any credit for what he’s accomplished. These folks have made it crystal clear why they resent the president’s achievements. Be done with them. I’m just grateful so many of us are able to see clearly why President Obama has the best interest of America and Americans at heart and hope that more than enough of us acknowledge this truth by next Tuesday.

[David in FL]

1. This brings me to your second point about this is ALL the "left" can hang its hat on. Bullshit. (Sidenote: I guess the left is the 53% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008) 2. I want a President....

1. Gotta admit, a snappy comeback like that, I got nuthin'..... As to the side note, it'll be interesting to see what % of those 2008 voters want to continue "hoping" for another 4 years. Don't misunderstand, I'm NOT predicting a Romney win.....there are just too many people out there that don't care that the President hasn't accomplished much of anything the past 4 years. All they care about is that the check keeps coming in month after month. Obama could very easily win. 2. Do you have one now?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

1. Gotta admit, a snappy comeback like that, I got nuthin'.....there are just too many people out there that don't care that the President hasn't accomplished much of anything the past 4 years. All they care about is that the check keeps coming in month after month. Obama could very easily win.

2. Do you have one now?

Yes, we do have a President now. He was elected by a relative landslide.

Hasn't accomplished much of anything?

Seriously?

LOL.

See

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com

(Insert an "f bomb" for the stars. It's funny and states accomplishments at the same time.)

Or the PG Version: http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com

[David in FL]

Yes, we do have a President now. He was elected by a relative landslide. Hasn't accomplished much of anything? Seriously? LOL. See [URL=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php[/URL] [URL=http:]http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com[/URL] (Insert an "f bomb" for the stars. It's funny and states accomplishments at the same time.) Or the PG Version: [URL=http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com]http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com[/URL]

What I meant was do you have one that you're pleased with. Apparently the answer is yes. Maybe another $5 trillion in deficit spending and another 4 years of no movement on the jobs front (except for all those new federal government jobs) will change your mind. Of course, if those things don't bother you after the first 4 years, I guess there's really no reason they will after another 4. I know, I know, it's Bush's fault.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

What I meant was do you have one that you're pleased with. Apparently the answer is yes.

Maybe another $5 trillion in deficit spending and another 4 years of no movement on the jobs front (except for all those new federal government jobs) will change your mind. Of course, if those things don't bother you after the first 4 years, I guess there's really no reason they will after another 4.

I know, I know, it's Bush's fault.

Hmmm, you like to place words in people's mouths.

It's a dishonest way to post. So don't do it. Not for my sake, but yours.

Hmmm, do you like anything Obama has done?

I won't answer for you.

As to the deficit, I answered that previously in a lengthy post. In sum, left with the choice of austerity - proven not to work, or stimulus - proven to work for limited periods - Obama chose stimulus.

While I don't agree with the all aspects of that program, it had a positive but limited effect.

If you remember in early 2009, credit markets were frozen, the private sector had closed their wallets, unemployment was raging - it was not a pretty picture.

When no one is spending, the government is the only entity big enough to continue the economy. Obama's plan, as he stated, was for government to stabilize the country until the private market recovered. And then, government spending could decrease as government revenues picked up and the private economy picked itself up.

For various reasons, mostly political, and some ineffective policy by the President - the recovery is not as energetic as hoped. Over the last 1.5 years, Obama has corrected some of his policies. But we still don't have a jobs bill with a Congress elected to create jobs. Whose fault is that? The President introduced a jobs bill. He has even tried to stimulate the private sector without a bill. But it's not enough.

You can blame Bush. But that time is over. It's time for government to work and get private business motivated with reform and a reasonable tax and investment policy.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

What I meant was do you have one that you're pleased with. Apparently the answer is yes.

Maybe another $5 trillion in deficit spending and another 4 years of no movement on the jobs front (except for all those new federal government jobs) will change your mind. Of course, if those things don't bother you after the first 4 years, I guess there's really no reason they will after another 4.

I know, I know, it's Bush's fault.

David, the simple fact that you complain and complain about Obama but only mention Bush as a sarcastic end-note is evidence of your bias.  You're willing to look the other way and half-ass acknowledge that "okay, okay, Bush wasn't really a great Republican president" rather than complaining about how he took a budget that started with a $17 billion dollar deficit and managed to, in 8 years, increase it to well over $500 billion a year, adding $5 trillion to the debt.

It's called hypocrisy.  You can't complain about one and not the other and then try to act like you're open-minded.

The deficit and debt didn't begin with Obama, but strangely enough when die-hard Republicans are spouting their B.S. about the debt it's always about how much Obama has added to it.  Sad thing is, you guys are the only ones who believe the B.S.  I know you THINK the rest of us are listening, but really we're just laughing inside at how brainwashed you've become.

The more you complain about one man, the more uninformed you make yourself appear, David.

[David in FL]

David, the simple fact that you complain and complain about Obama but only mention Bush as a sarcastic end-note is evidence of your bias.  You're willing to look the other way and half-ass acknowledge that "okay, okay, Bush wasn't really a great Republican president" rather than complaining about how he took a budget that started with a $17 billion dollar deficit and managed to, in 8 years, increase it to well over $500 billion a year, adding $5 trillion to the debt. It's called hypocrisy.  You can't complain about one and not the other and then try to act like you're open-minded. The deficit and debt didn't begin with Obama, but strangely enough when die-hard Republicans are spouting their B.S. about the debt it's always about how much Obama has added to it.  Sad thing is, you guys are the only ones who believe the B.S.  I know you THINK the rest of us are listening, but really we're just laughing inside at how brainwashed you've become. The more you complain about one man, the more uninformed you make yourself appear, David.

News flash.....Bush is not running for President, Obama is, and I personally don't want another 4 years of what we've already had. Obama himself said that if he couldn't fix the economy in 3 years he would be a one term President. I hope to hold him to that.

[David in FL]

Hmmm, you like to place words in people's mouths. It's a dishonest way to post. So don't do it. Not for my sake, but yours. Hmmm, do you like anything Obama has done? I won't answer for you. As to the deficit, I answered that previously in a lengthy post. In sum, left with the choice of austerity - proven not to work, or stimulus - proven to work for limited periods - Obama chose stimulus. While I don't agree with the all aspects of that program, it had a positive but limited effect. If you remember in early 2009, credit markets were frozen, the private sector had closed their wallets, unemployment was raging - it was not a pretty picture. When no one is spending, the government is the only entity big enough to continue the economy. Obama's plan, as he stated, was for government to stabilize the country until the private market recovered. And then, government spending could decrease as government revenues picked up and the private economy picked itself up. For various reasons, mostly political, and some ineffective policy by the President - the recovery is not as energetic as hoped. Over the last 1.5 years, Obama has corrected some of his policies. But we still don't have a jobs bill with a Congress elected to create jobs. Whose fault is that? The President introduced a jobs bill. He has even tried to stimulate the private sector without a bill. But it's not enough. You can blame Bush. But that time is over. It's time for government to work and get private business motivated with reform and a reasonable tax and investment policy.

What words did I "place in your mouth"? I simply drew a conclusion based on your 70+ posts on this thread alone. So let me ask directly. Are you pleased with the job that he's done, such that you want another 4 years of the same?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

News flash.....Bush is not running for President, Obama is, and I personally don't want another 4 years of what we've already had. Obama himself said that if he couldn't fix the economy in 3 years he would be a one term President. I hope to hold him to that.

Did anyone really think you could recover from a great recession in 3 years?

As to fixed, I believe the stock market has recovered fully, and the market recovers before the economy recovers. Fixed also depends on your definition. For some people, it will never be fixed while Obama is President. Obama will receive no credit for the progress made over almost 4 years. Even if unemployment was 4% and the debt was decreasing, you'd have people say it was not fixed.

Their judgment is clouded by irrational hate fueled by the GOP and people like the Koch Brothers, not rational judgment, and certainly not facts. The facts state that a wider chasm between wealthy and the "rest of us" creates economic slowdowns, which is where Romney wants to lead.

We now have healthier banks and auto manufacturing, and all trends, including real estate, are up! etc. - see the long list of Obama's accomplishments in the previous posts for economic issues and regulations designed to prevent the financial abuse (that the GOP is attempting to overturn) that helped cause the recession.

If you don't want what we have, which is a recovery, have another helping of Bush - it's name is Romney.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

What words did I "place in your mouth"? I simply drew a conclusion based on your 70+ posts on this thread alone.

So let me ask directly. Are you pleased with the job that he's done, such that you want another 4 years of the same?

Oh, my, David in FL, if that is the only conclusion you drew from all those posts ... oh, my. You must have Romnesia.

I believe ObamaCare covers pre-existing conditions.

Given a choice between Obama and Romney, I'll take Obama, based on facts and performance. I certainly don't agree with many things he did, but the basis for comparison is Romney - a shapeshifter who has described himself as a severe conservative, and has shown no depth on almost every issue.

I'll let you figure out the words you're placing in people's mouths - apparently a look in the mirror is needed. You better analyze your posts.

God luck with that. It may be a life long venture.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Joakim

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

No more needs to be said.

Just quoting the Bible Mark 3:25 , A house with two heads is a House divided upon itself. I believe that's what we have in a two party system?:

It's people like you that wants me to check all boxes one sided.

Isn't a one party system what the Soviet Union had?  That worked really well.

My only real lament is that with our 2 party system, a 3rd party can no longer squeeze into the mix, because it can't get any "official" recognition.  We have a few splinter parties, but all they do is siphon away the votes of a few malcontents, and occasionally elect one or two candidates into local government.   Even the immensely popular Theodore Roosevelt was unable to win the presidency as the third party candidate of the Bull Moose Party.  Maybe it's not a good thing to allow so many parties that none has a real majority, but to have a system which effectively blocks any possible change is also not in the best interest of the country as a whole, and the party bosses have so much power that they can block any attempt to curtail their agendas.  The Soviet system took that idea to an extreme, and when it crashed, it hit hard.  Our system is nearly as bad now.  Neither party is truly conservative any more.  The Republicans are just a bit less liberal than the Democrats.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

My figures are based on the amount of money collected by the government from each group.   Whether additional money could, or even should have been collected via taxation is irrelevant to those numbers (although very relevant to which candidate you support), as they show only was was actually collected from each group.   Those ARE reality.  The REAL reality of just how much money is collected BY THE GOVERNMENT from those individual groups of people.      The fact you can't seem to grasp this is again, very telling but let me try to express this another way for you.........

The government collected $1.9 trillion dollars in personal income taxes and payroll taxes.  Of that amount, the wealthiest Americans paid $1.279 trillion dollars.      The two groups which the Tax Policy Center identify as middle class groups collectively paid $573 billion dollars.   Now, tell me again who is bearing the burden of our tax system?

Like I said, nothing based on the reality of the money that is sheltered from taxation. So just stop already.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

The man paid almost $2 million in taxes last year.  That's more  money than I will make (let alone pay in taxes) in the remainder of my life.   So I guess the definition of "such little tax" is a matter of perspective...

Putting money in off shore accounts has been a problem for a very long time.   When I was a kid, I remember people complaining about others putting money in off shore accounts.   I'm in my 50's now, so that clearly goes back to well before either Bush took office.    However, as long as he is playing by the rules, I don't see it as wrong.   In fact, just the opposite.   I see it as a smart move, made within the rules as they exist (whether you agree with those rules or not is a matter for another debate).

Frankly, considering that every dollar collected by the federal government actually came from taxpayers and I happen to be a taxpayer, those federal dollars happen to be mine (and yours).   Personally, I want somebody who is well versed in how to get the most out of that money to be the guy holding the purse strings.  Just my opinion and yours may vary.

I assume you pay "income" tax. Well, guess what? The guy who complains about the 47% who don't pay Federal income tax (although they pay a myriad of other taxes) does NOT pay "income" tax. He maneuvers the books to insure that he has always gotten paid so he only paid a capital gains tax, a much lower rate. And payroll taxes are not taken out of capital gains so, guess what again? Romney does not even pay payroll tax into Medicare and Social Security. The guy is a hypocrite of the highest order.