Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[David in FL]

I am not a Democrat, Republican, left or right to their extreme or a Socialist. I am a "Pacifist/Independat". In making my decisions, I take the best points of all idealogy, consider the data and make a calculated decision. I believe their are good points in all platforms but stuborn Political idealogies does not make Common Sense.The definition of insanity is doing what didn't work before and trying it again Trying it again "On a Larger scale", is totally insane.

So you have no core beliefs of your own. Got it.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

So you have no core beliefs of your own.

Got it.

I had no idea I was without belief, just because I wasn't as far left as the Democrats or as far right as the Republicans.  But if that's how you want to categorize everyone who has their own belief set and, when it comes to voting, looks at BOTH sides, looks at whose values tend to agree with our own, considers the importance of each of those comparisons, and then votes based on that data, well that's your choice.

I don't just blindly follow a party, nor do I think anyone else who refuses to blindly follow a party has no "core beliefs".

This really isn't that difficult of a concept to understand.  No reason to make it sound difficult by making it sound like you can't understand how someone can be somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I had no idea I was without belief, just because I wasn't as far left as the Democrats or as far right as the Republicans.  But if that's how you want to categorize everyone who has their own belief set and, when it comes to voting, looks at BOTH sides, looks at whose values tend to agree with our own, considers the importance of each of those comparisons, and then votes based on that data, well that's your choice.

I don't just blindly follow a party, nor do I think anyone else who refuses to blindly follow a party has no "core beliefs".

This really isn't that difficult of a concept to understand.  No reason to make it sound difficult by making it sound like you can't understand how someone can be somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans.

Totally agree (and with you too Joakim)

I would even take the bolded line one step further and say that anybody who does blindly follow a party and "agrees" with every single thing on their agenda is the one without any core beliefs.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

So you have no core beliefs of your own.

Got it.

Actually that isn't the case. It sounds to me that he likes to think things out rather than just go with the bumper sticker on the car in front of him.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Totally agree (and with you too Joakim)

I would even take the bolded line one step further and say that anybody who does blindly follow a party and "agrees" with every single thing on their agenda is the one without any core beliefs.

ZING. Oooh, I'll bet that left a mark.

[David in FL]

I had no idea I was without belief, just because I wasn't as far left as the Democrats or as far right as the Republicans.  But if that's how you want to categorize everyone who has their own belief set and, when it comes to voting, looks at BOTH sides, looks at whose values tend to agree with our own, considers the importance of each of those comparisons, and then votes based on that data, well that's your choice. I don't just blindly follow a party, nor do I think anyone else who refuses to blindly follow a party has no "core beliefs". This really isn't that difficult of a concept to understand.  No reason to make it sound difficult by making it sound like you can't understand how someone can be somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans.

I never said that you had no core beliefs. Joakim claims that he evaluates issues by considering all points of view in an effort to make a calculated decision. That sounds sweet and even a little noble, but it really says that he does not have a base set of principles against which he compares another point of view.... .....well, except for that pacifist thing, and that kind of takes us right back to the medical marihuana thing.... ;-) Now, in the interest of fairness, and realizing that I may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, I'll ask Joakim, what are your core beliefs, those guiding principles by which you decide who gets your vote in an election? I'll even start.... I believe in smaller government, the free market, individual and economic freedom, and personal responsibility. I tend to characterize myself as conservative and federalist, in that I believe in the rights of states and local municipalities to generally govern and look after themselves with minimal interference from the federal government. This is who I am. I will always vote for the candidate that I believe will best represent my interest based on those core beliefs and principles. In our 2 party system, that tends to be the Republican Party. They're not perfect, but they're a heckuva lot closer to me than the Democrats at this juncture. Ok Joakim, your turn.....

[David in FL]

Actually that isn't the case. It sounds to me that he likes to think things out rather than just go with the bumper sticker on the car in front of him.

I disagree. Without a set of core beliefs and guiding principles, someone is much more likely to BE influenced by the bumper sticker on the car in front of him.....

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I disagree. Without a set of core beliefs and guiding principles, someone is much more likely to BE influenced by the bumper sticker on the car in front of him.....

I believe in the Government as the father that needs to guide their children, the states and develop National laws when needed, at this time.... It is jobs and affordable health care.Then they can step back. I believe in God first and foremost and to my core.

I also believe in the free market, individual and economic freedom, and personal responsibility. I am a Pacifist as stated but would not immediately endorse a platform that set to eliminate 70 years worth of Military reliance in 4 years time. That would be destructive. I believe you can find good in idealism's but not as a whole, I believe you learn from every experience in life, even a Homeless person on the street, even if it's just not what to do or appreciate what you have.

To achieve my ultimate goals is a steady pace forward and will take time and forward progress and new and creative thinking. Not retro idealism's.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I never said that you had no core beliefs.

Joakim claims that he evaluates issues by considering all points of view in an effort to make a calculated decision. That sounds sweet and even a little noble, but it really says that he does not have a base set of principles against which he compares another point of view....

.....well, except for that pacifist thing, and that kind of takes us right back to the medical marihuana thing....

Now, in the interest of fairness, and realizing that I may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, I'll ask Joakim, what are your core beliefs, those guiding principles by which you decide who gets your vote in an election?

I'll even start....

I believe in smaller government, the free market, individual and economic freedom, and personal responsibility. I tend to characterize myself as conservative and federalist, in that I believe in the rights of states and local municipalities to generally govern and look after themselves with minimal interference from the federal government.

This is who I am. I will always vote for the candidate that I believe will best represent my interest based on those core beliefs and principles. In our 2 party system, that tends to be the Republican Party. They're not perfect, but they're a heckuva lot closer to me than the Democrats at this juncture.

Ok Joakim, your turn.....

It sounded like you assumed that when someone states that they "evaluate issues by considering all points of view in an effort to make a calculated decision" it means that they don't draw on their own experience and wisdom.  The term "all points of view" means that you augment your own experience with the experience and wisdom of others, in addition to any facts presented that maybe you hadn't considered when you established your beliefs.

We all learn from experience.  A truly wise man can learn not only from his OWN experience but the experience of others.  To say that I listen to all points of view in order to ensure that I haven't been misled by my own singular experience is NOT a weakness--rather it is a strength.

I'd argue that it indeed does NOT say that "it really says that he does not have a base set of principles".  It simply means he's open minded enough to accept input from other sources, rather than the opposite which would be to assume that one knows everything already and doesn't need any more information in order to make decisions.  We've had elected officials who had this philosophy and they RARELY do much good for the country because RARELY do they actually know as much as the "experts" in any given area.

We all have a lot to learn.  I applaud anyone who realizes this and can say that they need more information before making any critical decisions.  This is what most of us want from our elected officials, and it's a fine way to conduct ourselves when choosing those elected officials.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I disagree. Without a set of core beliefs and guiding principles, someone is much more likely to BE influenced by the bumper sticker on the car in front of him.....

Bull. You just pigeonholed yourself with a bunch of noble sounding platitudes that would fit very nicely on a bumper sticker. Life isn't that simple. And please, don't give me party allegience. That is bumper sticker politics at it's worst. Screw the parties, because they ar both bought and sold anyway. They don't have anything approaching core beliefs, unless there is a dollar sign attached. We should have open primaries and then let the top two guys go at it, no matter what their party affiliation.

[David in FL]

Bull. You just pigeonholed yourself with a bunch of noble sounding platitudes that would fit very nicely on a bumper sticker. Life isn't that simple. And please, don't give me party allegience. That is bumper sticker politics at it's worst. Screw the parties, because they ar both bought and sold anyway. They don't have anything approaching core beliefs, unless there is a dollar sign attached. We should have open primaries and then let the top two guys go at it, no matter what their party affiliation.

So, what are your core principles?

[David in FL]

I believe in the Government as the father that needs to guide their children

No more needs to be said. :-(

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by David in FL

.....well, except for that pacifist thing, and that kind of takes us right back to the medical marihuana thing....

Are you saying that anyone that has searches for the most Peacful World Society as a drug addict? FYI, I don't use drink alchol or use drugs that aren't perscribed and MariJuana is not one of them. Independent voting is exactly what it states. It means I can and will Independently choose where to place my Vote and I would be stupid just to vote for every Independent candidate.

[Joakim]

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.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

So, what are your core principles?

I believe in my family, my faith, liberty, equality, fairness, charity and my Golf Club. Everything else evolves from that. It is not a simple equation.

Nonsense about size of government rings false when things like Sandy happen, don't they? Government is necessary. Of course everything starts locally, and localities and states should be in charge of their destiny, but they don't have anything without the "United" States. Otherwise we would be like the tribes in Afghanistan with tribal leaders telling you how to live your life and fighting off the tribe next door.

Without regulation you would not have clean water, safe food, clean air and safe working conditions. Corporations (who aren't people, BTW) would love to be able to do what they wish with minimal regulation ( and they did with impunity until the government finally stepped in) because the free market will always take shortcuts that will affect their bottom line in a positive way. A perfect example is the pre-existing condition edict in Obamacare. The insurance companies would love to get rid of that for one simple reason: bottom line. I am all for market systems, but you better be damn sure that it is not taking advantage of people in lieu of profits. And personal responsibility is not a "conservative" principle, it is uniquely American.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by phan52

I believe in my family, my faith, liberty, equality, fairness, charity and my Golf Club. Everything else evolves from that. It is not a simple equation.

Nonsense about size of government rings false when things like Sandy happen, don't they? Government is necessary. Of course everything starts locally, and localities and states should be in charge of their destiny, but they don't have anything without the "United" States. Otherwise we would be like the tribes in Afghanistan with tribal leaders telling you how to live your life and fighting off the tribe next door.

Without regulation you would not have clean water, safe food, clean air and safe working conditions. Corporations (who aren't people, BTW) would love to be able to do what they wish with minimal regulation ( and they did with impunity until the government finally stepped in) because the free market will always take shortcuts that will affect their bottom line in a positive way. A perfect example is the pre-existing condition edict in Obamacare. The insurance companies would love to get rid of that for one simple reason: bottom line. I am all for market systems, but you better be damn sure that it is not taking advantage of people in lieu of profits. And personal responsibility is not a "conservative" principle, it is uniquely American.

Good Parable. Be careful as Dave will use Parable's against you, or maybe just me. I think he needs to go golfing, look up into the sky, bath in the peace and tranquility of the moment and maybe he will see the light. Then again probably naught.

The Obama care point on pre-existing is also very important as many Americans get hosed because of life circumstances.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by phan52

And BTW, the vast majority of the very wealthy do not create jobs.They amass and shelter their wealth any way they can, leaving the resulting tax burden on the middle class. That is a fact.

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?

[hanalei]

Where u get these #'s? Fox news? Id rather read a tabloid. And the taxes people reference are % based by income, not totals..