Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Close, but no......

......it's "Socialism is bad. Obama is Socialist. Therefore Obama is bad." I hope that helps.

Taxes are NOT and should not be for redistribution of wealth. They're to provide revenue that the government needs in order to provide those functions as outlined in the Constitution. Taking money from one person, with the express intent to give it to another, is not one of those functions.

Yeah, this is the thing I think we'll have to disagree on.

There are people in the world who are unable to provide for themselves.

Not talking about UNWILLING...I'm talking about people who are UNABLE to provide for themselves.

This attitude that you express when you say that no tax dollars should be used to help them makes me a little sick.

No civilization, no matter what the political ideology, should be allowed to let people starve to death just because they aren't able to work and contribute to the nation's economy.

I sure as hell hope you don't really believe what you just wrote.  I hope it was just another exaggeration.

"Promote the general welfare" means we need to do what we can to take care of the needs of the whole.  It means when we have weak links, we need to do what we can to eliminate them.  If we have people out of work who are able to work, we need to put them to work .  If we have people who are UNABLE to work, we need to take care of them.  We do NOT need to provide for the people who are able to work but unwilling to do it...they can get off their butts and provide for themselves.  But we DO need to take care of the ones who are UNABLE to work.

[hanalei]

[quote name="x129" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/432#post_781090"]Socialism is Bad. Obama is bad. Therefore Obama is a socialist. Don't they teach anything in school these days?:-)   Taxes have always (and will always) redistribute money.

Close, but no...... ......it's "Socialism is bad. Obama is Socialist. Therefore Obama is bad." I hope that helps. :-) Taxes are NOT and should not be for redistribution of wealth. They're to provide revenue that the government needs in order to provide those functions as outlined in the Constitution. Taking money from one person, with the express intent to give it to another, is not one of those functions.[/quote] Revenue to government needs like providing welfare? Food programs? Housing assistance? Prisons? Rehabs?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Those words have been used to describe Obama and his policies (also left wing policies in general) for the last four years.  I have yet to hear a single valid explanation why reverting the taxes back to the levels they were in the 80's or 90's is socialism.

Anybody care to give it a try?

Originally Posted by David in FL

Taxes are NOT and should not be for redistribution of wealth. They're to provide revenue that the government needs in order to provide those functions as outlined in the Constitution.

Exactly.  This is what is being done.  This is what has always been done.  Obama wants to eliminate tax cuts on rich people to revert to previous levels of taxes to better "provide the functions as outlined in the constitution."  So, I'll ask again ... how is that socialism?

The only people who are suggesting that Obama is trying to "redistribute wealth" are people like you.

[x129]

Nope taxes are redistribution of wealth. Giving 100 billion to boeing (corporations are people) is no different than giving 100 billion to 50 million people other than who gets the cash. You just disagress since you think you get more out of fighter jet than having some one being hungry.  And for what it worth the founding fathers thought the individual mandate was legal. They had no problem compelling people to buy private insurance since it advance the nations welfare.

Originally Posted by David in FL

Close, but no......

......it's "Socialism is bad. Obama is Socialist. Therefore Obama is bad." I hope that helps.

Taxes are NOT and should not be for redistribution of wealth. They're to provide revenue that the government needs in order to provide those functions as outlined in the Constitution. Taking money from one person, with the express intent to give it to another, is not one of those functions.

[David in FL]

You just disagress since you think you get more out of fighter jet than having some one being hungry.

Wrong again. National defense is one of the functions that the federal government is required to do under the Constitution.

[David in FL]

[VIDEO][/VIDEO][quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/450#post_781128"] The only people who are suggesting that Obama is trying to "redistribute wealth" are people like you. [/quote] Yep. People like me, non-socialists! :-D

[David in FL]

.  If we have people out of work who are able to work, we need to put them to work .  If we have people who are UNABLE to work, we need to take care of them.  We do NOT need to provide for the people who are able to work but unwilling to do it...they can get off their butts and provide for themselves.  But we DO need to take care of the ones who are UNABLE to work.

I absolutely agree. I'd add though that it doesn't have to be the federal government that does it......

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I absolutely agree.

I'd add though that it doesn't have to be the federal government that does it......

True.  It doesn't HAVE to be the government.  But for the people who have nobody else stepping forward to help them out (seniors, for example) there has to be a program to help them.

You talk about social programs as though they are the problem.  The problem is people who try to cheat the system and take advantage of programs to which they should not be entitled.

If we were to to eliminate all the "socialist" functions of government we might as well get rid of all National and State Parks, public universities, municipal fire departments (funded by the PUBLIC government to protect PRIVATE property)...on virtually every piece of government-owned land is a "socialist" organization/function (with the exception of those that support Constitutional functions such as the justice system...police departments, court houses, etc).

I went to an incredible public school system growing up.  Thanks to my mom's low income working for the Social Security Administration, I was eligible for reduced-price lunches so I didn't have to go hungry.  A socialist system that MANY of us enjoyed.

Interstate highways...socialism.  Public roads...socialism.

This country, founded on a free market and capitalism has had many "socialist" products that provide for the "public welfare" of the people.  We pool our money to help pay for those things that benefit everyone, regardless of their contribution to the country.

Is it really your wish to eliminate all forms of socialism, or will you just pick and choose?  Is it just the ones where they take your money and give it directly to someone else without you getting to decide if they are or are not worthy of receiving it?

[David in FL]

True.  It doesn't HAVE to be the government.  But for the people who have nobody else stepping forward to help them out (seniors, for example) there has to be a program to help them. You talk about social programs as though they are the problem.  The problem is people who try to cheat the system and take advantage of programs to which they should not be entitled. If we were to to eliminate all the "socialist" functions of government we might as well get rid of all National and State Parks, public universities, municipal fire departments (funded by the PUBLIC government to protect PRIVATE property)...on virtually every piece of government-owned land is a "socialist" organization/function (with the exception of those that support Constitutional functions such as the justice system...police departments, court houses, etc). I went to an incredible public school system growing up.  Thanks to my mom's low income working for the Social Security Administration, I was eligible for reduced-price lunches so I didn't have to go hungry.  A socialist system that MANY of us enjoyed. Interstate highways...socialism.  Public roads...socialism. This country, founded on a free market and capitalism has had many "socialist" products that provide for the "public welfare" of the people.  We pool our money to help pay for those things that benefit everyone, regardless of their contribution to the country. Is it really your wish to eliminate all forms of socialism, or will you just pick and choose?  Is it just the ones where they take your money and give it directly to someone else without you getting to decide if they are or are not worthy of receiving it?

Don't make the mistake of equating the responsibilities of the federal government, with services that would be more appropriately handled by state and local governments under our federalist system. Just about every item you describe above should be a matter for the individual state or local municipality to decide and administer.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Don't make the mistake of equating the responsibilities of the federal government, with services that would be more appropriately handled by state and local governments under our federalist system.

Just about every item you describe above should be a matter for the individual state or local municipality to decide and administer.

They are, nevertheless, socialist products.

It almost sounds like you're okay with a state taking your tax money and providing those services, but you're opposed to a federal government doing the same.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

They are, nevertheless, socialist products.

It almost sounds like you're okay with a state taking your tax money and providing those services, but you're opposed to a federal government doing the same.

That is what it sounds like to me as well.

And, again, all of those things that you (David in Flo Rida, not Dave in Arizona) say are socialist services have been that way for a long time.  None of these things are new.  So again, why does this make Obama a socialist, but not every previous president?

[David in FL]

They are, nevertheless, socialist products. It almost sounds like you're okay with a state taking your tax money and providing those services, but you're opposed to a federal government doing the same.

We're talking about the federal government here. What the state or local government does or does not do will be dependent on the actions of locally elected representatives. As such, they'll be much more representative of what the local population deems to be in their best interest. But again......don't confuse state/local with federal. The topic here is the Federal government and their over-reach. Something not limited to the democrats by the way.....

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

We're talking about the federal government here. What the state or local government does or does not do will be dependent on the actions of locally elected representatives. As such, they'll be much more representative of what the local population deems to be in their best interest.

But again......don't confuse state/local with federal. The topic here is the Federal government and their over-reach. Something not limited to the democrats by the way.....

So you're opposed to national parks, federal funding to public universities, federal funding for public highways, federal grants for medical research, federal student aid/Pell grants, federal student loans?

And no, we're not talking about political parties...thank God.  lol

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

I absolutely agree.

I'd add though that it doesn't have to be the federal government that does it......

True.  It doesn't HAVE to be the government.  But for the people who have nobody else stepping forward to help them out (seniors, for example) there has to be a program to help them.

I'm one of those "seniors" and nobody's offered to give me a free ride.  I wasn't some high paid executive, just a blue collar machinist, yet my wife and I managed to help ourselves right through 2 recessions to the point of being able to afford to retire to a home on the beach.  I"m not saying the everyone aspires to that sort of goal, but it isn't impossible.  Some of it depends on how you prioritize your life long before you reach "seniority".   But I got no help from the government, nor did I ever ask for any.  I wasn't raised that way.  Too many people are raised with that mindset today.  Mom and Grandma both live on welfare, so that must be the way to go.  It's a self perpetuating disaster in the making.

Some people truly do need assistance, but not nearly in the numbers which receive it in this country, and some of those who truly do deserve help don't get it because for some obscure reason they don't "qualify", or like me, they weren't raised to go begging to the government.  Too many of those who do receive government welfare are able bodied people who are simply too lazy to look for work, (or would be if they ever got off the chair in front of the TV), and they wear the unfortunate circumstance of being raised in a bad neighborhood as a shield and an excuse.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I'm one of those "seniors" and nobody's offered to give me a free ride.  I wasn't some high paid executive, just a blue collar machinist, yet my wife and I managed to help ourselves right through 2 recessions to the point of being able to afford to retire to a home on the beach.  I"m not saying the everyone aspires to that sort of goal, but it isn't impossible.  Some of it depends on how you prioritize your life long before you reach "seniority".   But I got no help from the government, nor did I ever ask for any.  I wasn't raised that way.  Too many people are raised with that mindset today.  Mom and Grandma both live on welfare, so that must be the way to go.  It's a self perpetuating disaster in the making.  Some people truly do need assistance, but not nearly in the numbers which receive it in this country.  Too many of those who do receive government welfare are able bodied people who are simply lazy (or would be if they ever got off the chair in front of the TV), and they wear the unfortunate circumstance of being raised in a bad neighborhood as a shield and an excuse.

I agree!

When I joined the military I was making barely more than minimum wage (about $5.69 an hour, if you're curious).  I was a newly-married 22-year-old with a wife and young step-son.  We were qualified for food stamps because I made so little.  Back then we weren't allowed to get base housing because you had to be an NCO to live on base (yeah, that's right...I didn't make enough money to live on base...luckily they realized how stupid that was and finally changed it a few years after I joined).

We managed to get by without the food stamps.  Lots of coupons (Colorado Springs had a great deal in King Soopers and their "double coupon" days) and Tuna Helper 2-3 times a week.

I never complained about the money.  I never took up the offer for food stamps.  But there were a few tough times that we were tempted.  The point is that the simple fact that we HAD that option made our lives easier.  We knew that if something happened financially we'd have that option available, but we chose not to take it because as long as there were places where we could cut back (like the cable bill...our one luxury) we'd do it.

There are certainly people who were in worse shape than we were, and for MANY of them it wasn't a choice.  There will ALWAYS be people who try to abuse the system.  There are people who like to take the "easy" way out and would rather not work if they don't have to.

So which is worse:

1.  Create a system that takes care of all the people who absolutely NEED the services, knowing that some people will abuse it and get something they don't deserve.

2.  Create a system that takes care of ALMOST all of the people who absolutely NEED the services, but that has a lot of red tape and increased requirements to keep people from abusing it.

If you choose #2, it's great that you are able to keep people from abusing the system, somehow, but how do you explain your actions to the people who fall into the category of NEEDING the services but not being able to get it because of the red tape and qualification requirements you've set up?

Our justice system is similar.  We created a system based on the philosophy that it's far better to let a criminal go free every now and then than to falsely imprison an innocent one.  That's why so many laws protect the rights of criminals (as well as innocent people).

So which is worse?  Starving a truly needy person, or feeding a leech?

[David in FL]

So you're opposed to national parks, federal funding to public universities, federal funding for public highways, federal grants for medical research, federal student aid/Pell grants, federal student loans? And no, we're not talking about political parties...thank God.  lol

All of the above with the exception of the interstate highway system are more appropriately administered and funded at the state and local level. I'll even grant you some medical research funding and a VERY few, select national parks that are so special as to be recognized as unique, National Treasures. The rest? Nope. I'm not going to play, "well what about this" games though. Either you understand and believe in a federalist system, or you believe in something much more statist. Certainly there are varying degrees, but the current administration is FAR beyond what I consider appropriate and Obama would like to continue down that road even further. Current Republicans aren't a heckuva lot better, but they are better.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

All of the above with the exception of the interstate highway system are more appropriately administered and funded at the state and local level. I'll even grant you some medical research funding and a VERY few, select national parks that are so special as to be recognized as unique, National Treasures. The rest? Nope.

I'm not going to play, "well what about this" games though. Either you understand and believe in a federalist system, or you believe in something much more statist. Certainly there are varying degrees, but the current administration is FAR beyond what I consider appropriate and Obama would like to continue down that road even further. Current Republicans aren't a heckuva lot better, but they are better.

I only gave the examples because I wanted it to be clear that I do agree we need to cut back, but it's not an all-or-nothing issue.  Nor is it black or white on any particular program.

I will agree 100% that we need to cut back.  I do agree that MANY programs should be left to the States.  I do not agree that MOST programs should be left to the States, however.  All the programs I listed, I believe, have a positive impact on this nation as a whole and all of them can be justified as contributing to the "general welfare" and the long-standing success of this nation.

[David in FL]

I'm one of those "seniors" and nobody's offered to give me a free ride.  I wasn't some high paid executive, just a blue collar machinist, yet my wife and I managed to help ourselves right through 2 recessions to the point of being able to afford to retire to a home on the beach.  I"m not saying the everyone aspires to that sort of goal, but it isn't impossible.  Some of it depends on how you prioritize your life long before you reach "seniority".   But I got no help from the government, nor did I ever ask for any.  I wasn't raised that way.

You really expect us to believe that you achieved all that through hard work, self-sacrifice, discipline, and by making good decisions along the way? That the federal government didn't prop you up every step of the way? Nonsense! Next you're gonna tell me that there's no Santa Claus! ;-)