Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Although I live comfortably, I am not wealthy, nor do I make enough to fit into what Obama defined as middle class ($250K).  Last year, I paid an effective tax rate of 9% on my income.   Even so, I laugh when I hear such comments...

The very liberal Tax Policy Center takes into account both income taxes and payroll taxes when accounting for the percentage of taxes paid.    According to their own figures, the wealthy are paying 67% of all taxes collected in this country, while the middle class pays 11% and a group they call the "upper middle class" pays 19%.   Combining the two groups that fit into their definition of middle classes amounts to 30% of all taxes collected.

According to the IRS, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.

Given this information, can you explain just how is the tax burden being born by the middle class  when they are paying less than half of what the wealthy are paying?

How are "personal income" and "personal income taxes" defined? The vast majority of people's primary tax obligations are social security/medicare taxes and state taxes (property, sales, state income). A person pays payroll taxes then state taxes and then personal income taxes. If nothing is left after the first two then...That's why you see numbers like 22% of personal income , but 40% of personal income taxes . Payroll taxes stop at ~$100k.

Here's a simplistic illustration: if we have 99 people making $1,000 and 1 person making $99,000, based on what your post implies, they should split the personal income tax 50/50.

Let's assume a 20% tax burden (all taxes) for everyone with an 8% payroll tax (capped on income of $3,000) and an effective 3% state tax (for simplicity). Those making $1,000 pay $110 in payroll/state taxes and $90 in personal income tax. The 1%er would pay $240 in payroll and $2,970 in state for an effective rate of 3.2%. Thus to get to the 20% level, he/she would pay $16,632 in personal income tax. The total personal income tax for the 99% is  $8910 compared to the $16,632 of the 1%er. The 1%er earns "only" 50% of the income, but pays 65% of the personal income taxes. This all despite a tax burden that is the same.

Your post sounds like it's displaying some grand imbalance in our tax code, but when one looks at the details, he/she will see a system that makes some sense. I would like to see us go to a much simpler tax code for sure, but the numbers you highlight in your post is a lot of hot air.

[jgreen85]

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.

article in Wall Street Journal (I know a liberal rag, but it's all Obama supporters can hang their hats on) shows that over the last 4 years we've recovered all of the jobs lost during the President's term (starting January w/e 2009). Obviously the huge job losses began in October, I believe, of 2008, so we have a ways to go. The big weight on the total job numbers: Govt. jobs. Private sector jobs are the big area of growth. I know you purposefully pointed to federal jobs, which I'm sure are up, but again that ignores the fact that government overall has gotten significantly smaller. Down side to the current job numbers: not as many full-time jobs and jobs aren't paying as much.

Fact is though: we're on the right track. Even Romney knows this, which is why the 12 million jobs number is one that a recent non-partisan report said will likely be created regardless of who's President. In the article a Romney campaign person was quoted on the record as saying, "this report shows that our number is realistic." He didn't deny the report or say it does matter who is elected; he just agreed with the report. And no, I won't dig it up for you. Google/Bing "12 million jobs" doesn't matter who's President. I'm sure it'll pop up.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

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?

Well, at least now you admit where you are coming from.

[phan52]

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.

We were losing 500,000 jobs a month back then and within 3 months of the stinulus we started adding jobs and have been on the plus side ever since. And Federal employment has fallen for seven of the last eight months, the longest sustained drop in more than a decade. There were a lot more Federal jobs added in Bush's last term than in Obama's. You people act like the world was created in January of 2009.

[phan52]

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.

We were losing 500,000 jobs a month back then and within 3 months of the stinulus we started adding jobs and have been on the plus side ever since. And Federal employment has fallen for seven of the last eight months, the longest sustained drop in more than a decade. There were a lot more Federal jobs added in Bush's last term than in Obama's. You people act like the world was created in January of 2009.

[phan52]

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.

Considering where we were in the dark days of early 2009, I would say the economy has been fixed to a substantial degree. BTW, check your 401K compared to what it was in 2009 before the stuff the Obama Adminstration did started kicking in. Are there any houses selling in your neighborhood? But no, your not better off, are you?

[phan52]

And to end my participation to this futile thread...No, Obama does not play too much golf.

You're on the tee, Mr. President...

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

Actually this may sound strange but I agree a 3rd party is not the solution, I am registered independent because I don't want a party to claim me. Sorry let me clarify, I was not in the mood to fully expound on my intent as I was sidetracked with a Parable that was taken out of context. I believe in a Bi-partism leader of our Nation . However it is labeled (since labels is prevalent in politics). All of this partism bickering is very comical when looking at it from a Non partisan perspective. IMO, The leader of the Nation has to have no affiliations, special interests or personal motivations, if that can be achieved with that individual having a label or not is something that can be debated.

People want to endorse their parties journeying to the surreal, with blinders on and bullish to the end. I respect someone that will

state yes this is a candidate weakness (we all have them so they must exist) instead of Pig headed, unrealistic irriatating riddicule.

If the candidate ideal is not accepted through Congress and the House then it won't be approved.

I don't know the answer to achieving MY core belief or goal which is a "Non Partisan Leader". That at time of re-election we are debating their individual ideals rather than the overall party endoursements. I would also like to see each party nominate their electives from individuals that are Not Party Ignorant with their votes and some Bi-Partisam values. With two party system in the Congress and the House. I don't believe in Communism and I believe similies to Comunism are not relevant.

[Mr. Desmond]

In response to David in Fl thinking that I was pleased with Obama's performance from my posts, I'll say this:

I spent a lot of time here attempting to separate Obama fact from Obama fiction. Or inputting facts to debunk the fictional arguments against President Obama. Too many people (typically, those labeled as conservatives) think if you defend Obama, you like Obama. No - some of us want to play with facts, not vitriol.

I also spent time talking about Romney - the apparent shallowness of his knowledge, his campaign of running on empty slogans, and a return to the Bush years - same policies with the probability of another financial collapse - those Wall Streeters and bankers are greedy. Of course, they didn't pay the first time for their excesses, and they assume they won't have to pay again. The lower and middle classes pay with no economic growth.

As to Obama, I was disappointed in several ways. I actually emailed the WH during the first week of his Presidency and said winning an election only gets you a seat at the table, you've got to negotiate with and have the Republicans, to the extent possible, buy into your program. Negotiate, slap them on the back, and sell yourself. I also advised him in a recession, you need a jobs program of some type, and it was a good idea to reform the tax system to lower rates and deductions - make it simpler and understandable, and perhaps go for a single digit sales tax on non-necessities. There are ways to create revenue with low rates - by taxing a little bit of everything at low rates and cutting all but essential deductions. I also stated it is a good idea to show  yourself in the public - a lot. In times of crisis, people want to see their President.

I thought going for health care right after the stimulus was not a smart move - I would have gone with tax reform. He went with health care and appointed Simpson-Bowles as a tax commission. At the same time, early in the first time was probably the only time he was going to pass health care reform. But I think not going for tax reform and giving business more certainty to invest - stalled economic growth and recovery over the next few years.

But as we are finding out, Obama is not a back-slapper, is very careful and guarded in his decisions (slow to make them; it's like playing chess), didn't have a great staff,  he was naive in dealing with the GOP, and going for health care stalled the recovery. I'd like to hear more about entitlement reform, reforming government, and I'd like a plan to stabilize, and then decrease the national debt.

Of course, Obama has many accomplishments - links provided above, and was strong on foreign policy (wars winding down, AQ leadership decimated, turning to Asia, 3 trade agreements, etc)

So the issue is stay with a guy you know, Obama, who actually has done a decent job - we are in a recovery - and hope he learns from his mistakes. OR do we go with a guy, Romney, who appears limited in his knowledge of government, shallow in his knowledge of issues and foreign policy, and whose stance on issues changes with his audience. A man who appears to have no inner core other than his ambition. A man who seems to change his mind with the wind or whoever has his ear, and has not learned the lessons of history, a man who managed his company with questionable ethics and NO responsibility or empathy to people. He has not seemed to grasp the reality that private business caused many of our issues and must be gently regulated so they do not abuse the system and take us into another economic freefall.

I will stay with the intelligent yet flawed guy we know - Obama.

[Mr. Desmond]

Lowering top tax rates spurs Growth --- Not

From the NY Times:

The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.

Enlarge This Image

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, center, and other Republicans raised concerns with an economic report that questions a central tenet of conservative economic theory.

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.

But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.

“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”

Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service , a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings.

[David in FL]

Well, at least now you admit where you are coming from.

I've never NOT admitted "where I was coming from". It's liberals like you that try to convince themselves as much as others that you're some kind of moderate. Silliness. Admit and embrace what you are. No need to be embarrassed!

[David in FL]

I will stay with the intelligent yet flawed guy we know - Obama.

I appreciate your thorough response. It's just a shame that you feel the need to double down on the guy you admit to being flawed. The definition of insanity........

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I appreciate your thorough response.

It's just a shame that you feel the need to double down on the guy you admit to being flawed.

The definition of insanity........

As opposed to the model of unflawed perfection in whom?

[David in FL]

[INDENT][/INDENT][quote name="dave67az" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/558#post_782197"] As opposed to the model of unflawed perfection in whom? [/quote] The question is, do you want more of the last 4 years. If the answer is yes, vote for Obama. If the answer is no, vote for Mitt. Looking out for my daughter's future, the choice is easy for me. Your perspective may be different, and that's ok.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by David in FL

If the answer is no, vote for Mitt.

This is what I don't get.  Why is it an automatic that if you were less than pleased by the last four years that you would want to vote for Mitt?  Shouldn't it matter what his plans are?  There can be the possibility that you were less than pleased with the last 4 years yet at the same time also believe that Obama is a better choice than Romney.  Wouldn't you agree?

If you are just going to vote for "Not Barack Obama" then why can't it be Roseanne Barr?  I have about the same knowledge of her plans as I do of Romneys, and nobody has even asked her what her plans are, that I know of.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I appreciate your thorough response.

It's just a shame that you feel the need to double down on the guy you admit to being flawed.

The definition of insanity........

Umm, David, we are all flawed.

We're human. It comes with the territory.

With Obama, at least we get competent leadership - no big scandals, no big errors. And he's accomplished a lot - we haven't had the BIG, FAST recovery. Did anyone think we would? Economists state this type of recession doesn't offer a fast recovery (But it could have been quicker). Obama is very careful, probably too careful. One hopes he learns from errors, is less political in a second term, and get things done with the GOP. In other words, he becomes a leader who is positive in mind and spirit in terms of working with the other side.

I really don't know what we'd get with Romney. He has not done a good job making a case for himself. He is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma.  He talks in platitudes. He has no details. He comes across as unrealistic, shallow, unknowledgeable, and naive. Private Business is not the answer to every question. I wish it was. And bringing in less revenue and increasing defense spending does not pay down the debt. Decreasing the top tax rates does not lead to an economic boom. Look at history.

Romney has changed his positions so many times, I don't think he knows who he is. I wish he had made a better, more realistic case for himself.  I see a guy who has no inkling of who he is other than a one dimensional dealer maker for a company that cannibalizes businesses and people. It is too bad. The guy has talent -- in the private sector.

Hey, no one wants a repeat of the last four years. We want to go forward. But neither do we want a repeat of the 8 years previous to Obama. Two wars and a doubling of the national debt.

We go forward ... as will the President we elect. Despite the screaming, we've had 32 months of jobs growth, the housing market is picking up, the stock market is at pre-2008 levels, banks are lending again, and we are in recovery. We are doing better than other Western Nations. Ask yourself why. They went austerity, we went stimulus. And if we are smart, we will recover what we spent because we are headed on a stronger path to recovery.

Will we be wise and reduce costs, raise revenue, reform entitlements and reduce our debt?

That is the challenge.

The next four years will be different no matter who is President - that much is guaranteed.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I appreciate your thorough response.

It's just a shame that you feel the need to double down on the guy you admit to being flawed.

The definition of insanity........

Originally Posted by dave67az

As opposed to the model of unflawed perfection in whom?

Originally Posted by David in FL

The question is, do you want more of the last 4 years. If the answer is yes, vote for Obama.

If the answer is no, vote for Mitt.

Looking out for my daughter's future, the choice is easy for me. Your perspective may be different, and that's ok.

That's logic.

Your first statement, however, was not.

Your first statement, that voting for someone who has flaws is insanity, is nothing more than partisan rhetoric with the implication that your party's candidate has no flaws.

You say a lot of things that make sense in the forum, then you turn right around and make a remark that makes you sound like the blindly-obedient party followers that most of us independent voters find offensive.  Seriously, it'd be like if Romney was in a Debate with Obama and out of nowhere goes "Oh yeah?!  Well YOU'RE FLAWED!!"

Is the debt bigger than four years ago?  Yep.  Is part of it Bush's fault?  Yep.  Is part of it Obama's fault?  Oh yeah.  Were we in a recession four years ago when Obama took office?  Yep, things were headed downhill.  Are they still headed downhill?  According to everything I've seen, nope.  Market is rebounding, home prices are rebounding, GDP is growing steadily.  Can you give full credit to Obama for that?  Nope, but then again I don't believe Bush crashed the economy either.  Is it taking longer to recover than most of the experts thought four years ago?  Yep.  Was Obama naive for listening to experts who told him things would be "fixed" in just a few years?  Yep.  But guess what...the economy is growing again.  So the experts were right in that we would be growing again soon, we (a lot of us) were just guilty of thinking (hoping) that this would mean in a few years we'd be right back where we were when the economy was booming in 2006.

What has Obama done that I don't like?  Well, for one, he's weakened our position on illegal immigration and we still don't have a secure border.  That bothers me tremendously because I happen to live in a state where it's a big deal.  I also know that after 9/11 we postulated that since tightening air security and expanding "no fly" lists that the next incursion by terrorists will probably come by land.  We have this little nuclear power plant west of Phoenix that is at risk now because the guy in the White House isn't willing to do what's necessary to secure the border.

I also don't like the Democrat's stance on unions.  Labor unions were created at a time when we didn't have a lot of government intervention, and the only way to ensure good, safe working conditions and fair wages was for the workers themselves to unite.  Well, now we have a robust Labor department and OSHA regulations and I honestly don't see a need for unions any more.  I honestly think they do more harm than good.  I've had friends who were unionized and it's ridiculous to me the rules they have in place.  Can't work/think "outside the box" because it wasn't negotiated in the contract.  Can't give that "extra effort" at work because you'll make the rest of the guys in the union look bad and giving 110% would violate maximum production quotas.  I look at what unions did to my favorite sports and, if you ask me, they ruined them.  I can't even watch hockey now because of the unions.  Guys don't play because it's fun any more.  Money is their driving force.  Pretty sad if you ask me.

But for all the things I don't like about Obama, I can think of just as many, if not more, things I don't like about Romney.  Throwing money at military equipment when everyone else is having to cut back makes absolutely no sense to me.  To set a minimum military budget that HAS to be spent whether the Pentagon is asking for that money or not is wasteful.  You were in the military, you know how military budgets work.  Around late summer, a list goes out from every commander.  Okay folks, tell us what you want for your offices because we have money we have to spend before October 1st.  We did it EVERY YEAR.  I was Resource Advisor for a while, and the last few years I supervised the Resource Advisor, so I know how much money we threw away.  And it happens in every unit, on every base, and I'm betting it isn't just the Air Force.  And Romney wants to throw MORE money at the military?  Why, so we can build more ships?  We don't need more ships!  The reason we don't have as many ships is because (1) they're bigger and more efficient now and (2) we have no real naval threats any more.  Who are we building them to fight?  Is there a hidden Navy in Atlantis that we're afraid is going to rise up?  Are terrorists building a navy we don't know about?  The fact that he wants to set a MINIMUM budget for the military tells me all I need to know about whether he's really going to cut spending anywhere.

You say you're voting for him because of your daughter's future.  So tell me...how exactly is increasing military spending going to help her?  He's said he's going to cut taxes, but the Democrats are right in that he hasn't said how he's going to pay for those tax cuts.

So yeah, I can totally see why someone would vote for Obama even though he has flaws.  And it's not insanity.  It's called "weighing the issues".  Romney wants to boost the economy by building an even bigger military and cutting taxes (both of which will add to the deficit).  I guess if adding to the deficit will help the economy, then Romney certainly has bigger plans than Obama.  Personally I was hoping the Republicans would nominate someone who would actually CUT budgets rather than EXPAND them.  What the hell is wrong with your party dude?!!?!?!

[David in FL]

1. Umm, David, we are all flawed. 2. With Obama, at least we get competent leadership - no big scandals, no big errors. 3. we haven't had the BIG, FAST recovery. Did anyone think we would? 4. One hopes he learns from errors 5. Romney has talent -- in the private sector. 6. Hey, no one wants a repeat of the last four years. 7. The next four years will be different no matter who is President - that much is guaranteed.

1. I guess I was confused when you specifically called it out in your previous post. 2. I'll disagree with respect to his leadership. Prior to this job he's NEVER led anything....and as he's proven, the Presidency isn't the place for on the job training. But agreed, no big scandal or errors........of course Benghazi is starting to look a little ugly, so who's to say? 3. Obama himself promised a recovery in 3 years, or he would be a one term President. 4. Again with the hope thing. At some point people need to learn that "hope" is not a plan.... 5. Yep. And he did a damn good job in the public sector as governor too! Obama has NO experience in the private sector at all.....and no perspective as a result. 6. That's why I'm not voting for the guy who says he needs the next 4 years to continue and finish what he started in the last 4. 7. If we reelect the same guy who gave us the last 4 years, the guy who says he wants to continue and finish the job, how can you guarantee that? The only way to guarantee it is to elect the guy who promises that there won't be more of the same.