Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[SloverUT]

This topic has strayed far from the topic originally posted.  I don't understand why it is still here.

[newtogolf]

See now you're going for drama over substance.  No one other than Hillary during her campaign and Obama have made the concerted effort to single out the wealthy and paint them as evil.  I won't even bother debating with you that some of the wealthy (like Mitt) pay a lower tax percentage than we do but the total dollar amounts aren't even close.  As an accountant you know 15% of $100K is much less than 10% of $5M.  For the record I'm much closer to the $100K than the $5M so it's not a self serving statement.  We buy things based on dollars not percentages.  A wealthy person pays far more in terms of dollars than the middle class for the same or less services.

I, and most small business owners (who aren't "wealthy") take issue with Obama and Hillary Clinton painting us as rich.  First of all, $250K on Long Island NY with the property taxes, utility prices, gas prices, sales tax and state taxes we pay is far from rich yet that was his cut off.  Secondly, Sub Chapter S corporations owners must incorporate the business profits as part of their income.  In some cases, they are, in others like mine, the business profits don't go into my personal account, they remain with the company to ensure I have working capital and can meet payroll.  If you've never employed people, you have no idea of the level of stress involved knowing that a family depends on your ability as a business person to keep food on their table and a roof over their heads.

If he targeted  people earning over $1M, his net would be smaller but would be more accurate in the depiction of wealthy.  I'd also point out the wealthy for whatever their reasons tend to be very generous when it comes to charities.  I don't see the benefit of making these people the enemy of the other social classes or making them seem selfish because they are defending their own personal interests.

Everyone has the opportunity to be wealthy in this country, I grew up lower middle class, paid for my own college and am where I am today because I'm not afraid of hard work.  I worked 12 - 16 hour days, 7 days a week.  I missed a good part of my kids early years so I could provide for them.  I'm all for taking care of people who CAN'T take care of themselves but I resent being forced to take money from my kids so those who choose to stay home can get a free ride.  And don't tell me people don't choose to stay home, there are a lot of lazy people out there, don't insult my intelligence.

If there are kids in this country starving today, it's not because there's not enough government revenue from taxes to feed them, it's because Obama doesn't know how to manage or prioritize it.  So save the starving kids stories for your liberal friends.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Saw a version of that years ago. It's sad how a certain faction of the populace can equate candy with survival.

Because that's what we're talking about- kids being able to eat, Moms being able to have adequate housing for their kids. I don't think y'all realize the seriousness of the problem - and that millions of children go hungry each day -- in the USA.

The fact is redistribution is not new to the President, although the right wing would like everyone to believe that falsehood. We've redistributed through the tax system for over 70 years. The fact is no one called it redistribution when Reagan or Clinton raised the highest rates. But it's redistribution when a black man requests it. Wow.

Hey, but have your laughs while children go hungry and homeless.

[rehmwa]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Are you pleased with the job that he's done, such that you want another 4 years of the same?

one could also write - 'do you really want another 12 years of the same and more?'

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Joakim

I'll take the bottom part.....

I've had 25 years experience dealing with this system. It's Materials Supply 101 just on a larger more competitive scale. See attached link.

http://scrambled.blinkweb.com/1/2010/07/getting-a-gsa-contract-for-dummies-b70fc/

It's not idea, but it works for them. There is some exasageration regarding the pens. They award contracts for supply and once implemented is not that difficult to manage.

I don't recall that many supplies that are needed when I'm visiting a Doctor.

Also, How is this going to change with Romney wanting to increase defense by 2 trillion (see below) building 3 more submarines and more aircraft carriers, they will be using the same GSA system. Just what we need, more Ships and Bombs. It increases low profit and temporary jobs that  expire once they are built or R&D.; This is the mentality that slammed our economy into this depression and it's just plain ignorant Federal Budget platform infusing temporary jobs against archaic equipment in a self admitted archaic system.

Being in this field would be great for me, but not for USA. I chose USA....

It really doesn't matter now, we will know in about 16 hours where our government is investing.

You stated....

The beauty of our government is that we the people are supposed to have input on what level the federal government is involved in our lives" Really??? Guess what, to late. The ObamaCare was already approved on from the President through Congress and the House and we have clogged up Legistrature for several years getting this approved. Now all of this work and the complete reversal of our Government hinges on a few hicks in Ohio.

Really, this is just insane, imature, asanine, asaten, asaeleven, etc... to have such a dramatic change of Government Policy in what appears as just a Non Partisam statement to get elected. Instead of a "Best interests of the United States oef America."

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/08/budget_crunched_the_facts_of_romney_s_proposed_2_trillion_defense_increase

You don't think that many supplies are needed when you visit the doctor????  Have you actually looked around the office and examining room?  Where do you think all that stuff comes from, and how much will that change when the federal government starts "managing" his supply lines?   And you would defer defense to fund health?  Just how shortsighted are you?

If you really want to fund a national heath care system, find a way to outlaw Congressional pork projects.  Unfortunately I don't have any numbers, but the federal dollars thrown at non federal pork has to be staggering.  They can't pass a bill in this country any more without some state level pork barrel project attached to it.   Federal involvement in state issues should have the same sort of guidelines that the FBI uses in what it considers its jurisdiction.  Only if the issue crosses state lines or has national impact (such as bank robbery for the FBI) should Washington get involved.  If a state requests assistance through official channels then the request should be considered on its own merits, not attached to (and buried in) a bill totally unrelated to the state's request.  How would you react if you were trying to hire a contractor for a home improvement job, but the only way you could get it done is if you also paid to get his next door neighbor's car repaired?  All sorts of what should be purely state issues get passed in Congress like this, and although we almost never hear a word about it, we are darn sure paying for it.

[x129]

Large government is unpopular in the abstract. But there are few programs that a don't have a lot of backers.  Farmers want to keep farm aid and cut something else. Seniors want to keep medicaid paying for their nursing home. Defense contractors want to keep the spending up. For profit colleges want those cheap student loans. Real estate agents want government backed mortgages that allow people to buy 25% more expensive houses. And so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Dave, you're not reading my posts, I said Federal government, not government.  I also said, "the federal government can't be as efficient as the private sector if you factor in all the real costs they incur in doing business."  See this is where you not fully reading my posts is leading us into debate rather than agreement.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You don't think that many supplies are needed when you visit the doctor????  Have you actually looked around the office and examining room?  Where do you think all that stuff comes from, and how much will that change when the federal government starts "managing" his supply lines?   And you would defer defense to fund health?  Just how shortsighted are you?

FYI, our defense department is the biggest pork project in the Federal budget, or what passes for a budget. But yeah, let's shortchange our health system to make more obsolete war machines that we will never use.

And really, the Federal government "managing" medical supply lines? What are you talking about?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by phan52

And really, the Federal government "managing" medical supply lines? What are you talking about?

Give them a chance... they haven't even started yet.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Give them a chance... they haven't even started yet.

Yeah, they are all socialist, aren't they?

You are clueless. Obamacare relies on the market systems as much as any healthcare plans we have ever had in this country. That is a fact.

[Tightliestv]

Most business, etc. is handled on the course.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Proof positive that the left has no sense of humor.

...and that when all else fails, anyone who disagrees is racist.

At least if you were a racist there would be a hint of logic in your argument because he is, in fact, part Black.

The fact that the Republicans all think he's a socialist who wants the government to take over all means of production in the country is what makes no logical sense to anyone but them.

[newtogolf]

x129, I don't argue that some programs belong at a Federal level and none of my comments apply only to the left, there's just as much blame on the right.

People back programs that benefit them, farmers want farm-aid because it helps them, just as I'm sure that right now a large number of NY'ers and NJ'ites are happy that FEMA is in place despite their response to date being atrocious.

I have been on both sides, I know how the federal government buys products through the GSA schedule and it's completely inefficient.  I agree with Fourputt, there are some interstate agencies that need to exist, inefficient or not because there no way the states could eficiently manage them.  I don't want NY creating it's own space program while every other state does it.

We need to be honest, nothing is perfect but when the government is as inefficient and wasteful as it is when do we as citizens say "STOP, get your act together, cut the waste and let's be better at what we do"?  Telling the rich to pay more taxes is putting cologne on body odor, it doesn't address the real problems. In four years the next guy will ask for more money, when do we hold those in office accountable and force them to manage the money they have responsibly?  Until we do that I'm against the federal government taking on any more programs (like healthcare) or power from the states.

Originally Posted by x129

The believe that the federal government can not be as efficient as the private sector is an article of faith not a fact. There are somethings it does very well (compare Medicare to any other health care in the US) and things it does poorly. Take the post office. Right now it is loosing billions. How much of that is because the post office is can not be efficient and how much is it because we don't want the post office to be efficient? Did you count how many republican congressman and senators spoke out against the post office being more efficient? They were in favor of less efficient government as long as that inefficient government continued to serve the needs of their voters. So we continue to have a couple thousand post office branches that lose money. In general outsourcing government work to the private sector has been a failure (20-30% more expense with lower quality. Google around and you can read about Indiana, Texas, and couple others states experiences).

Large government is unpopular in the abstract. But there are few programs that a don't have a lot of backers. Farmers want to keep farm aid and cut something else. Seniors want to keep medicaid paying for their nursing home. Defense contractors want to keep the spending up. For profit colleges want those cheap student loans. Real estate agents want government backed mortgages that allow people to buy 25% more expensive houses. And so on.

The believe that the federal government can not be as efficient as the private sector is an article of faith not a fact. There are somethings it does very well (compare Medicare to any other health care in the US) and things it does poorly. Take the post office. Right now it is loosing billions. How much of that is because the post office is can not be efficient and how much is it because we don't want the post office to be efficient? Did you count how many republican congressman and senators spoke out against the post office being more efficient? They were in favor of less efficient government as long as that inefficient government continued to serve the needs of their voters. So we continue to have a couple thousand post office branches that lose money. In general outsourcing government work to the private sector has been a failure (20-30% more expense with lower quality. Google around and you can read about Indiana, Texas, and couple others states experiences).

Large government is unpopular in the abstract. But there are few programs that a don't have a lot of backers. Farmers want to keep farm aid and cut something else. Seniors want to keep medicaid paying for their nursing home. Defense contractors want to keep the spending up. For profit colleges want those cheap student loans. Real estate agents want government backed mortgages that allow people to buy 25% more expensive houses. And so on.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by dave67az

At least if you were a racist there would be a hint of logic in your argument because he is, in fact, part Black.

The fact that the Republicans all think he's a socialist who wants the government to take over all means of production in the country is what makes no logical sense to anyone but them.

The problem is that you don't listen to OBAMA.  Read what he's written, listen to what HE says.   HE has said that he wants to redistribute wealth.  HE has said that he wants a single payer healthcare system.

You either aren't paying attention to him, you don't understand the concept of socialism or statism, or you yourself prefer a socialist/statist system.  At this point I'm not sure which of the 3 it is.

[newtogolf]

There you go again with your big paint brush painting anyone that disagrees with you with the same stroke.

You are the one lacking logic, you want to see what you want to and dismiss anyone that sees things differently as paranoid, a non-learner, racist, illogical and any other adjective you can come up with.

Why is it you're the only objective, omniscient one? Talk about an over sized ego.....

Originally Posted by dave67az

At least if you were a racist there would be a hint of logic in your argument because he is, in fact, part Black.

The fact that the Republicans all think he's a socialist who wants the government to take over all means of production in the country is what makes no logical sense to anyone but them.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by SloverUT

This topic has strayed far from the topic originally posted.  I don't understand why it is still here.

LOL ... yeah, I don't think that anybody has even mentioned golf in a couple of pages.  But, it's election day, so I'm guessing this thread will fade away pretty quickly after today.

Somebody will have to remember to give it a bump in 3.75 years so we can start this "fun" all over again.  And if I'm still a 10 HDCP then .... arggggghhhhhh!!!

I have to, for the most part, commend all of those posting here (you know who you are ... the Dave's, Des, newto, x, etc.) for keeping it civil, entertaining, and also quite educational for those of us who don't follow politics as much.  Thanks!

[x129]

The main point is the government isn't by definition more inefficient than private industry. Part of this is because how inefficient private industry is. At one nameless company, my boss didn't fire 2 employees for 3 years. It turned out he was keeping them around so when the layoffs were needed he had deadwood to cut without effecting his project. It cost me a lot of my belief in the efficiency of a fortune 500 company. I was only naive 25 year old at the time. You can read numerous articles about medicare fraud. Does that mean that medicare is inefficient? No more than the auto insurance industry which also suffers the same problem.  You hear about the 500 dollar hammer from the defense department but private industry has 25 dollar aspirin in the hospital to go with it. In both cases your not paying for the product. You are paying for the stuff that enables you to get the product.

Saying you are in favor of cutting waste is cheap politics. People have been claiming it for 30+ years. But when you come up with examples of waste people complain. Cut 50 billion in defense waste and your are destroying american ability to defend herself. Cut 700 billion in medicare waste and your killing seniors.  But as I said, no one wants to go on record as saying they are going to cut specific programs.  Way to easy to make enemies.

As far as taxes, if they were being used for government expansion it would be one thing. But right now any tax increase is going to be used to pay for the services that americans have decided they want. They have just been putting them on the CC for the past 60 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

x129, I don't argue that some programs belong at a Federal level and none of my comments apply only to the left, there's just as much blame on the right.

People back programs that benefit them, farmers want farm-aid because it helps them, just as I'm sure that right now a large number of NY'ers and NJ'ites are happy that FEMA is in place despite their response to date being atrocious.

I have been on both sides, I know how the federal government buys products through the GSA schedule and it's completely inefficient.  I agree with Fourputt, there are some interstate agencies that need to exist, inefficient or not because there no way the states could eficiently manage them.  I don't want NY creating it's own space program while every other state does it.

We need to be honest, nothing is perfect but when the government is as inefficient and wasteful as it is when do we as citizens say "STOP, get your act together, cut the waste and let's be better at what we do"?  Telling the rich to pay more taxes is putting cologne on body odor, it doesn't address the real problems. In four years the next guy will ask for more money, when do we hold those in office accountable and force them to manage the money they have responsibly?  Until we do that I'm against the federal government taking on any more programs (like healthcare) or power from the states.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

The problem is that you don't listen to OBAMA.  Read what he's written, listen to what HE says.   HE has said that he wants to redistribute wealth.  HE has said that he wants a single payer healthcare system.

You either aren't paying attention to him, you don't understand the concept of socialism or statism, or you yourself prefer a socialist/statist system.  At this point I'm not sure which of the 3 it is.

Which is why every working person in this country who pays an insurance premium for their healthcare and every employer who pays similar premiums for their employees should vote for him. I don't care if it is the government, a non-profit, or a private entity but we NEED a one payer system.

Healthcare should not be a commodity. The only people who should be profiting from healthcare are doctors, hospitals and entrepreneurs who come up with treatments and cures. The amount of healthcare costs that go into the coffers of insurance companies is criminal and it WILL end some day. It is common sense, not socialism.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

The problem is that you don't listen to OBAMA.  Read what he's written, listen to what HE says.   HE has said that he wants to redistribute wealth.  HE has said that he wants a single payer healthcare system.

You either aren't paying attention to him, you don't understand the concept of socialism or statism, or you yourself prefer a socialist/statist system.  At this point I'm not sure which of the 3 it is.

You tell me he wants to redistribute wealth and that I'm the one who doesn't understand socialism.  That says everything.  You believe socialism is redistribution of wealth?  Funny, because when I took PoliSci I seem to remember something about the government owning and controlling all means of manufacturing.  The purpose of it was redistribution of wealth, but you can't simply leave off the manufacturing thing and make up your own definitions, David.  Again, I listen to what is said.  I do not claim that I can read minds as you and others do.

1.  He said he wants to redistribute wealth.  I have never argued otherwise.

2.  He said he wanted a single payer system if he was starting from scratch.  He said maybe someday we'll have that, if that's what the people want.

You're as bad as the democrats that are saying Romney wants to ban all abortions, even if the mother's life is at stake.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

There you go again with your big paint brush painting anyone that disagrees with you with the same stroke.

You are the one lacking logic, you want to see what you want to and dismiss anyone that sees things differently as paranoid, a non-learner, racist, illogical and any other adjective you can come up with.

Why is it you're the only objective, omniscient one? Talk about an over sized ego.....

Do you even bother to read what people say before you respond?
So because the word "racist" was in my post you don't even bother reading the context to see what I was saying...

Oh, wait, I know what the problem is now...you don't understand how to read the context and determine meaning.

I'll try to simplify this for you.

1.  Obama once said he preferred a single payer system for healthcare because it is a right, not a privilege.

2.  Obama has said since then that, since we have a system in place, the single payer system isn't an option because it would take a LONG TERM transition to move to something like that.

3.  Obama only has 4 more years in office (at most!).

4.  Even a bill that doesn't change anything fundamental about our healthcare system like the ACA takes YEARS to implement.  Even if they tried to pass any legislation moving to a single payer system, it would take DECADES for it to be implemented.

5.  Socialism is when the government OWNS and CONTROLS all means of production.  To say that any redistribution of wealth alone is socialism shows your ignorance of political science and economics.

I'll say this again.  Unless you are able to read something or listen to something and put it into context without adding your own opinions to the facts, then you are hopeless and certainly not objective.  You are the opposite of objective.  Look it up.  You aren't allowed to use any preconceived notions when being objective.  You're only allowed to use the facts as they are presented.  For you to think you're being objective is ridiculous.

And no, I'm not omniscient which is exactly why I listen to the facts BEFORE I make up my mind.

The omniscient ones like you already have your mind made up before you listen to anything.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

LOL ... yeah, I don't think that anybody has even mentioned golf in a couple of pages.  But, it's election day, so I'm guessing this thread will fade away pretty quickly after today.

Somebody will have to remember to give it a bump in 3.75 years so we can start this "fun" all over again.  And if I'm still a 10 HDCP then .... arggggghhhhhh!!!

I have to, for the most part, commend all of those posting here (you know who you are ... the Dave's, Des, newto, x, etc.) for keeping it civil, entertaining, and also quite educational for those of us who don't follow politics as much.  Thanks!

I really hope at that time we have a President that plays golf. Lol..