Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

... as does the electoral college system.

Oy vey, you ain't kidding.  It made sense - I presume - 200 years ago when people had no idea who was running or what was in their best interests.  But now it's plain silly.

Originally Posted by iacas

Edited for clarity. The amount I care about politics has been exceeded by this post.

I care about politics the same way I care about the Olympics.  Every four years I get jazzed up for a week or two, or maybe only a couple of days, leading up to the election, then watch nothing but the news all night to learn the results ... annnnnd that's it.

Today it's back to TGC and ESPN and trying to decide if I like the Walking Dead enough to keep watching.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Today it's back to TGC and ESPN and trying to decide if I like the Walking Dead enough to keep watching.

Yeah, I'm just glad TV is back to a regular schedule. :)

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

Oh brother. Hispanics and Asians and minorities ;blacks are a growing demographic too- believe in getting something for nothing, and for voting for a black guy because he's black.

That's not only ignorant but offensive.

[newtogolf]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Alexander Fraser Tytler - 1747 - 1813

[x129]

By the way you might want to research your quote. Most people don't think Tytler ever said it. This made the rounds after a previous election.  The other thing is nothing lasts forever. Democracy's might only be good for 200 years but other forms of government don't last much longer.  And the number of dictatorships that turn into monarchies is about zero in the last 150 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Alexander Fraser Tytler - 1747 - 1813

[newtogolf]

I saw there was a question about the quote being credited to Tytler.  Despite that it's still pretty insightful for someone from 18th century to predict our demise and the course our country would take.  BTW, Reagan made a reference to the quote in a speech he gave after the 2000 election since you seem more concerned about the author than the message it contains.

Originally Posted by x129

Good thing we are not a democracy then

By the way you might want to research your quote. Most people don't think Tytler ever said it. This made the rounds after a previous election. The other thing is nothing lasts forever. Democracy's might only be good for 200 years but other forms of government don't last much longer. And the number of dictatorships that turn into monarchies is about zero in the last 150 years.

Good thing we are not a democracy then

By the way you might want to research your quote. Most people don't think Tytler ever said it. This made the rounds after a previous election. The other thing is nothing lasts forever. Democracy's might only be good for 200 years but other forms of government don't last much longer. And the number of dictatorships that turn into monarchies is about zero in the last 150 years.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Alexander Fraser Tytler - 1747 - 1813

Odd, isn't it, that our current President hasn't passed entitlement legislation, yet he seems accused of giving the store away.

I don't consider health care to be a give away since we must pay for it. That legislation allows most people the opportunity to pay for health care and have it, while others qualify for government assistance based on lack of income.

And as I recall, the national debt increased as such -

Reagan -8 years - $3T

Bush 1 - 4 years - 1.6T

Clinton -  8 years - 1.4T

Bush  II - 8 years - 5.1T and 1.5T was incurred during the last year

Obama  -5.3T to present -almost 4 years.

All from memory here - Reagan entered office in a recession before better times hit, and was known as a supply sider. He hoped by lowering taxes that revenue as a percentage would increase more than without tax increases. Spending got out of control. Revenues increased but not greater than without tax increases (first indication that trickle down does not work). Bush suffered a recession during his term. Clinton experience a small recession entering office and then the tech economy boomed. Bush II entered with a small recession and spent silly with wars and entitlements, even with a stable if not growing economy until the last 2 years. In his last year, the deficit was $1.5T. In the last two years, over $2T. Obama inherited a Great Recession from Bush, unemployment increased substantially as he entered office. Revenues decreased, Spending balloons. Obama's record shows a slow recovery in a world wide recession.

Yes, we must get our fiscal house in order. But exit polls indicate people want economic recovery as a priority, not deficit reduction. Maybe they have something there - if you have employment, revenues increase, and as the private sector grows, you pay out less entitlements. But as we all know, entitlement reform must occur to wrestle down the deficit as well as tax reform.

The end of the republic? No - everyone recognizes the deficit as an issue - it is the inability to work together to resolve our issues that would threaten our republic.

'Night.

[Joakim]

There is a tremendous amount of backlash out there from the Obama nomination. Many racist comments are coming from the sore losers and some seriously irate bloggers.  The GOP and disconcerted bloggers blame the disconnect with Hispanics and individuals wanting a free hand out. What's up with that, I haven't heard about any new bills being sent through for additional assistance just the continuation of what was already in place.

I studied the GOP platform and concluded that I simply did not care for any of Romney's platform ideals and I had trust concerns regarding his honesty. I was originally interested with Romney's business experience but then discovered his dramatic increase of the Defense budget and I dismissed that as a negative as well. I was also afraid about his stance against Iran and how that might escalate. I did not vote for Obama in 2008 because of his inexperience the last time out but felt he did a pretty good job by bailing us out and with the GOP criticising every decison he made during his term. If either party had brought better candidates to me I would reasonably considered their platform. The GOP needs to learn how to take care of their women and we would be having a different conversation.

I was afraid we would get a backlash with a Romney election, which I believe most likely would have happened if he was elected, one can only imagine to what extent.

I guess that is what you get with nearly a 50/50 nation and when you bring race into the equation. The GOP needs to quite whining and the critics need to let get over their loss and allow this Nation to heal. Tax reform is needed and Mitch McConnel has even agreed to some reforms. Obamacare was already approved, now is not the time to whine about it. The tax reforms are necessary and I believe can be fair.

What we need everyone to remember we are suppose to be the UNITED States of America. Accept the decision and get on with life. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.

[newtogolf]

Position clarification - I posted the quote not to cheap shot Obama.  He won, I'm a big boy and can dust myself off after a loss.  As a business owner I gain nothing at this point bashing Obama, he's our president for the next 4 years whether I like him or not.  I love this country enough that I'll move on and do what's best for the country for the next 3 years and then evaluate who my options are for the next President.

The quote posting was motivated after hearing CNN, FOXN, and the major networks break down why he won and what appears to be the general mentality of voters.

1st example:  According to CNN, Obama won the support of the auto unions and workers because of Romney's position against the bailouts of Chrysler and GM.

2nd example:  Romney lost the hispanic vote because of his tough stance on illegal immigration.

3rd example:  Romney lost low income and entitlements voters because he would repeal ObamaCare if possible.

None of these issues has to deal with what's better for the country, it's what's better for each individual.  The #1 issue was the economy, but people voted based on what would put the most money in their pockets or cost them the least.  In that sense the quote is accurate.  We're putting people in office that promise us the biggest chunk of the budget.  That was the point of my post, not to Obama bash, not to whine cause my guy lost.  It was a simple observation.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Odd, isn't it, that our current President hasn't passed entitlement legislation, yet he seems accused of giving the store away.

I don't consider health care to be a give away since we must pay for it. That legislation allows most people the opportunity to pay for health care and have it, while others qualify for government assistance based on lack of income.

And as I recall, the national debt increased as such -

Reagan -8 years - $3T

Bush 1 - 4 years - 1.6T

Clinton -  8 years - 1.4T

Bush  II - 8 years - 5.1T and 1.5T was incurred during the last year

Obama  -5.3T to present -almost 4 years.

All from memory here - Reagan entered office in a recession before better times hit, and was known as a supply sider. He hoped by lowering taxes that revenue as a percentage would increase more than without tax increases. Spending got out of control. Revenues increased but not greater than without tax increases (first indication that trickle down does not work). Bush suffered a recession during his term. Clinton experience a small recession entering office and then the tech economy boomed. Bush II entered with a small recession and spent silly with wars and entitlements, even with a stable if not growing economy until the last 2 years. In his last year, the deficit was $1.5T. In the last two years, over $2T. Obama inherited a Great Recession from Bush, unemployment increased substantially as he entered office. Revenues decreased, Spending balloons. Obama's record shows a slow recovery in a world wide recession.

Yes, we must get our fiscal house in order. But exit polls indicate people want economic recovery as a priority, not deficit reduction. Maybe they have something there - if you have employment, revenues increase, and as the private sector grows, you pay out less entitlements. But as we all know, entitlement reform must occur to wrestle down the deficit as well as tax reform.

The end of the republic? No - everyone recognizes the deficit as an issue - it is the inability to work together to resolve our issues that would threaten our republic.

'Night.

[dak4n6]

Quote:

When Repubs say smaller government, they mean eliminate the programs they don't like and replace them with spending how they want it spent.

Zip you are a truth speaker.

Quote:

“I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”

This is why the GOP needs to redefine it's agenda if it is to survive.

Quote:

More efficient Government with less waste should be both parties objectives.

Let's not forget fraud and abuse to complete the triumverate.

[x129]

"Democracy is the greatest form of government and will last forever"--Jesus Christ.  Pretty insightful from a guy 2000 years ago, don't you think? There is a reason why people attach other peoples names to quotes.   And again we are not a democracy. We are a republic. There is a reason why the founding fathers did that.  FWIW there is a Ben Franklin quote that says something along the lines of "The republic will only last until the people realize they can vote themselves the treasury" and I thought there was something about a roman senator saying much same thing.

The thing is that the quote just isn't true as far as I know. Republics and democracies have failed mainly because of either internal revolts where a dictator takes over (see Germany in the 30's) or they get invaded (Athens in 500bc). A few fall due to economic crisis's but it isn't clear that rate is higher than any other form of government.  Granted there isn't a lot of history behind these forms of government. The roman republic lasted ~500 years.

And yes I worry about people voting themselves the treasury. After all isn't that what happened during the bush years? Between the tax cuts to bribe the electorate and the money handed out to contractors we went from a 100 billion dollar surplus to a 1.4 trillion a year deficit in  mere 8 years.  It just isn't the number 1 priority. Getting the economy on sound footing is number 1. Without that we will not be able to get our deficits under control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I saw there was a question about the quote being credited to Tytler.  Despite that it's still pretty insightful for someone from 18th century to predict our demise and the course our country would take.  BTW, Reagan made a reference to the quote in a speech he gave after the 2000 election since you seem more concerned about the author than the message it contains.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Position clarification - I posted the quote not to cheap shot Obama.  He won, I'm a big boy and can dust myself off after a loss.  As a business owner I gain nothing at this point bashing Obama, he's our president for the next 4 years whether I like him or not.  I love this country enough that I'll move on and do what's best for the country for the next 3 years and then evaluate who my options are for the next President.

The quote posting was motivated after hearing CNN, FOXN, and the major networks break down why he won and what appears to be the general mentality of voters.

1st example:  According to CNN, Obama won the support of the auto unions and workers because of Romney's position against the bailouts of Chrysler and GM.

2nd example:  Romney lost the hispanic vote because of his tough stance on illegal immigration.

3rd example:  Romney lost low income and entitlements voters because he would repeal ObamaCare if possible.

None of these issues has to deal with what's better for the country, it's what's better for each individual.  The #1 issue was the economy, but people voted based on what would put the most money in their pockets or cost them the least.  In that sense the quote is accurate.  We're putting people in office that promise us the biggest chunk of the budget.  That was the point of my post, not to Obama bash, not to whine cause my guy lost.  It was a simple observation.

I wasn't considering your post when I responded, it was quite tame considering. I like your points and would like to add.

4th example: Romney lost woman vote because of pro life stance.

5th example- Romney lost because he said no tax increases yet he was increasing military by 200 Billion per year, but also claimed that he would be cutting deficit. How does that work?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The quote posting was motivated after hearing CNN, FOXN, and the major networks break down why he won and what appears to be the general mentality of voters.

1st example:  According to CNN, Obama won the support of the auto unions and workers because of Romney's position against the bailouts of Chrysler and GM.

2nd example:  Romney lost the hispanic vote because of his tough stance on illegal immigration.

3rd example:  Romney lost low income and entitlements voters because he would repeal ObamaCare if possible.

None of these issues has to deal with what's better for the country, it's what's better for each individual.  The #1 issue was the economy, b

Thanks. Good points re: the American People have spoken...

One could also argue that similar self-interest motivated the Romney voter - they want fewer taxes and retention of their deductions, those who don't need health care now don't want to get a policy that will make them responsible, the banks and Wall St, despite their record of abuse, want no regulation, the oil companies want unregulated drilling, etc. The Romney voter's self interest has nothing to do with food, shelter, or health care, which makes their self interest more sophisticated, or on a higher level on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I realize you are more sensitive than to begrudge people their basic needs. Like you, I'd prefer that they work for it, and if on welfare, that they give back to the community. Unfortunately, we are a self-interested nation. Part of it is human nature, part of it is our nature - our rugged individualism. At the same time, we need a sense of community and care for our neighbor. The Pubs had that in Post WWII until the late 90's. It was probably a late backlash to the New Deal and the Great Society. The point is we can have a sense of community, limit and reform entitlements, and give back. We need imaginative, reality-based solutions. Legislators who come to the table with an open mind and a positive attitude.

(I don't intend to offend by this analysis - they are my thoughts and opinions. I am open to discussing all ideas)

[Harmonious]

I've stayed away from talking politics, mainly because it generally comes down to "I'm right, you're an idiot" statements.  Just like the tiresome religious back and forths.

The elephant in the room:

1) 2012 US deficit: $1,330,000,000,000.

2) Taxes gained each year by making the rich "pay their fair share" by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for anyone making over $250,000 a year:  $80,000,000,000.

3) Difference: $1,250,000,000,000 .

OK. How are you going to make up that difference without affecting the middle class?

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I've stayed away from talking politics, mainly because it generally comes down to "I'm right, you're an idiot" statements.  Just like the tiresome religious back and forths.

The elephant in the room:

1) 2012 US deficit: $1,330,000,000,000.

2) Taxes gained each year by making the rich "pay their fair share" by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for anyone making over $250,000 a year:  $80,000,000,000.

3) Difference:  $1,250,000,000,000.

OK. How are you going to make up that difference without affecting the middle class?

Well Romney would do it by cancelling Welfare programs, therefore only affecting the Lower Class.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I've stayed away from talking politics, mainly because it generally comes down to "I'm right, you're an idiot" statements.  Just like the tiresome religious back and forths.

The elephant in the room:

1) 2012 US deficit: $1,330,000,000,000.

2) Taxes gained each year by making the rich "pay their fair share" by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for anyone making over $250,000 a year:  $80,000,000,000.

3) Difference:  $1,250,000,000,000.

OK. How are you going to make up that difference without affecting the middle class?

Tell ya' what, I will contribute $1k to pay off the national deficit if the networks take off the haters on Fox, MSNBC, Drudge, Kos, and hate-talk like Limbaugh and Hannity.

That would be government regulation at its finest.

More seriously - I think we need a smorgasbord of ideas to reduce the deficit.

Cooperation in the Legislature.

Entitlement Reform - reorganize the programs, motivate people to get off the rolls or give them community service, etc.

Tax Reform - eliminate deductions on income above a certain level (based on the community), eliminate vacation home deductions, continue the FICA/Futa tax on earned income, raise the rates on capital gains to a higher level so income is income. Why are we subsidizing these gains? How about a single digit national sales tax on luxury items? i.e. cars over $60k, boats, yachts, airplanes, etc.

Higher Employment - our deficit now is affected by a lack of revenue. Get people working at better paying jobs so they are able to contribute more than payroll taxes.

Higher Employment also reduces the cost of entitlements

Health Care - make the new law more efficient and less expensive as we learn more

National Defense Reform - do we really need to spend more than the next 17 nations combined? Can we make our military procurement more efficient? Can we have a smaller but more efficient and sophisticated defense
Federal Government Reorganization and Reform - question everything to make it more efficient.

I'm certain there are many ideas to add ... these are just off the top..

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I've stayed away from talking politics, mainly because it generally comes down to "I'm right, you're an idiot" statements.  Just like the tiresome religious back and forths.

The elephant in the room:

1) 2012 US deficit: $1,330,000,000,000.

2) Taxes gained each year by making the rich "pay their fair share" by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for anyone making over $250,000 a year:  $80,000,000,000.

3) Difference:  $1,250,000,000,000.

OK. How are you going to make up that difference without affecting the middle class?

Part of the answer is, 'each year'. It won't be a one-year fix. Another part of the answer is reducing spending. The military budget comes to mind. Another part is when the economy eventually turns around, which will occur. Increased revenues will result with more people being employed.

Obviously it is doubtful the deficit will be totally eliminated. But great gains can be made to reduce it to a more manageable level.

[Phil McGleno]

You must have confused the facts with your own world view zipzoid because beyond a shadow of a doubt some people voted for Obama simply because he was black. If you believe nobody voted for him because he was black or because no old white men voted for Romney because he wasn't black or that no women voted for Hillary in the primaries four years ago because she was a woman then I've got some ocean-front property in Idaho to sell you I did not say most or even many people voted for him because he's black, nor did I say most or many people are lazy. Just look at the numbers. If you're a minority or an illegal or a Mexican or a black you are way more likely to be unemployed and using the social services democrats are known to favor. Tax and spend baby, excpet obama spent so much he racked up more debt than even your buddy Bush did in eight years. Theres no getting around that simple fact. Obama is the worst president weve ever had. And before you begin to attack me again instead of the things I say, GWB's easily in the top three of my list. Im not Democrat but I'm not Republican either.[quote name="zipazoid" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/720#post_783467"] That's not only ignorant but offensive.  [/quote]