Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by 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.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

When the economy started going south, Bush racked up $1.5T in debt in his last year - that would be $6T + in 4 years given the depth of the recession. About the same as Obama. But if he had gone austerity, putting more unemployed on the streets and looking for entitlements - hey, it could have been higher than Obama.

If worst President means adding to the deficit during their time, you're correct - Bush and Obama are the worst. Bush was just more embarrassing, imho.

[Phil McGleno]

Bush had more than a year of recession to dela with and my criteria for "worst ever" has a lot more factors than just the budget deficit. Obamacare is an abomination, he failed to repeal No Child Left Behind (GWBs baby I believe, it sucks) and his promise to get everyone out of the war zones in 100 days-remember that?-was naive at best and downright foolish and laughable. Bush was a doofus no doubt but like I said top three easily. ANYway politics are done for four years for almost everyone so I will see you all in 2016 and we can see whether the Republicans go even farther right and lose by even more. Idiots.[quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/738#post_783564"]Everyone is entitled to an opinion. When the economy started going south, Bush racked up $1.5T in debt in his last year - that would be $6T + in 4 years given the depth of the recession. About the same as Obama. But if he had gone austerity, putting more unemployed on the streets and looking for entitlements - hey, it could have been higher than Obama. If worst President means adding to the deficit during their time, you're correct - Bush and Obama are the worst. Bush was just more embarrassing, imho. [/quote]

[x129]

We tried the luxury tax on cars and boats in the 90s. It was disaster. That is the type of meddling that is a waste and distorts markets. The government shouldn't care if I buy a 75k car or a 50k watch. Bump the income tax rates up a couple of % and let people spend their money on what they want.

As far as motivating people to get off the benefits, good luck. Motivation is not the limiting factor for most of them. The lack of a job is.  How best to stimulate the economy is something nobody talked about. Maybe it would have been better to keep flooding the states with money for 2 more years so all those teachers and police officers wouldn't have been fired. Maybe that would have created enough demand to get us going again as unemployment would have been ~6%. Or maybe it just would have been another 500 billion/yr added to the deficit and we would be laying off those people now.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

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..

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by x129

We tried the luxury tax on cars and boats in the 90s. It was disaster. That is the type of meddling that is a waste and distorts markets. The government shouldn't care if I buy a 75k car or a 50k watch. Bump the income tax rates up a couple of % and let people spend their money on what they want.

As far as motivating people to get off the benefits, good luck. Motivation is not the limiting factor for most of them. The lack of a job is.  How best to stimulate the economy is something nobody talked about. Maybe it would have been better to keep flooding the states with money for 2 more years so all those teachers and police officers wouldn't have been fired. Maybe that would have created enough demand to get us going again as unemployment would have been ~6%. Or maybe it just would have been another 500 billion/yr added to the deficit and we would be laying off those people now.

Well, you can stimulate it on a business level.

Although, I disagree that a single rate national sales tax or VAT will not work - it works if the rate is low. I'd put the tax on non-essentials. People can choose to pay the tax or invest their money. In this way, people who normally do not pay income taxes do pay into the system. But I think it's critical to keep the rate low, and to keep a simplified income tax structure.

Business ideas. For 5 years,

Let business write off capital costs immediately or 5 years, instead of depreciating them over longer periods.

Allow a big investment credit on equipment - with an extra % for US Manufactured Equipment

Lower corporate tax rates for a limited time

Bring in overseas profits without a tax as long as the money brought back is used to employ US workers and invest in US equipment

Give employers a credit for hiring US workers.

etc....

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

Bush had more than a year of recession to dela with and my criteria for "worst ever" has a lot more factors than just the budget deficit. Obamacare is an abomination, he failed to repeal No Child Left Behind (GWBs baby I believe, it sucks) and his promise to get everyone out of the war zones in 100 days-remember that?-was naive at best and downright foolish and laughable. Bush was a doofus no doubt but like I said top three easily. ANYway politics are done for four years for almost everyone so I will see you all in 2016 and we can see whether the Republicans go even farther right and lose by even more. Idiots.

Okay, so I disagree with you. Nothing new. Let's play golf.

Obama did well in some areas (imho), but in other areas, in terms of taking the bull by the horns and actively leading - he performed poorly. He tried, I'd like him to try harder - to go to the center and be Mediator-in-Chief and get actively involved in our domestic problems.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by 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.

The problem with your post was you over-generalized everyone & by doing so you stereotyped them. Perhaps being a bit more selective in your wording, like you did above, would help.

And this 'Obama is the worst president we ever had' stuff. Because he spent money? As I stated earlier, that puts him on a level with every other president. Is it because he drove up the deficit? That puts him on a level with the vast majority of presidents, like, for example, Reagan. So if that's your rationale of Obama being the worst ever, you haven't even come close to explaining why.

My guess is, you don't really have a reason why, other than Fox News told you so. I'll give you, right off the top of my head, a handful of presidents who were pretty bad, in no particular order:

Buchanan - Dithered while the Union dissolved. Let the South secede. Historians pretty much agree he was the worst.

Harding - A scandal-ridden cabinet.

Nixon - Forced to resign while in office.

GW Bush - Started an elective war. Tried to appoint his personal attorney to the Supreme Court. Mishandled federal response to Katrina.

Hoover - The Great Depression paralyzed him, did nothing to address it.

A Johnson - Came within one vote of being impeached.

So again - what exactly has Obama done, which will make historians -  not Phil McGleno, golf pro - conclude that Obama deserves to be in that group?

[dak4n6]

Originally Posted by 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.

Taken directly from your ignorant stereotyping post:

Hispanics and Asians and minorities blacks are a growing demographic too- believe in getting something for nothing

You did not say "SOME Asians, minorities, and blacks...". Omitting this implies that ALL Asians, minorities, and blacks believe in getting something for nothing.

...They believe in being lazy together if thats what you mean. Get off your asses and get jobs.

Again, when you say "They believe..." that means they ALL believe.

Nor do you reference any of the huge hoards of white people who benefit from entitlement, but that must be because they are ALL doing so for valid reasons rather than laziness.

[Mr. Desmond]

Ummm, okay...

Statistics...

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

[newtogolf]

No offense taken and I completely agree.  Most of the discussions we had on here were domestic issues, taxes, Obamacare, etc.  While I openly admit as a business owner I would most likely gain personally from having Romney in office, my motivation to vote for him were also because I honestly felt he was better for our country in terms of domestic and foreign policy.

Someone needs to take China to task for their unfair trade practices, from intentionally maintaining a lower value to their money to allowing their manufacturing companies to violate patents.  If we want to get a significant number of people back to work, we need to become a manufacturering country again.  It's not in a businesses interest to build things here when it's so much cheaper in China.  Even the proud Japanese are out-sourcing to China.

Obama doesn't seem to view the threats from Iran and North Korea as seriously as I do.  I realize the sanctions are tough, but they need to be tougher.  Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.   I also believe we need to maintain a tighter relationship with Israel, not just because of the intelligence they provide us and their position in the middle east.  A tight relationship with Israel offers us input on any military actions they might take against countries in the middle east .

Issues like abortion and gay marriage play little in my decision for POTUS because ultimately other than SCOTUS appointees which must be approved by Congress the POTUS doesn't really get to dictate such policies.  For the record I'm pro for both issues.

What came from the exit polls and talking heads is that the majority of people don't understand or care about these issues, so thus their vote goes to whoever is willing to give them more.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

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)

[Phil McGleno]

Perhaps not assuming would help. [quote name="zipazoid" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/738#post_783608"] The problem with your post was you over-generalized everyone & by doing so you stereotyped them. Perhaps being a bit more selective in your wording, like you did above, would help.[/quote] I get to have an opinion as do you. Just because you don't like mine doesn't mean it's wrong. Because of that and other reasons. Plenty of other reasons. I said that it was more than the deficit but you keep assuming that's all I mean Stop assuming. And hes not on the same level he had the three biggest deficits so far. I don't watch ****ing Fox news, but you keep assuming and making an ass of yourself. Its funny to watch keep it up. [quote name="zipazoid" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/738#post_783608"]And this 'Obama is the worst president we ever had' stuff. Because he spent money? As I stated earlier, that puts him on a level with every other president. My guess is, you don't really have a reason why, other than Fox News told you so.[/quote] Assumptions. I did not say ALL and if I had meant ALL I would have typed ALL. Minorities are way more likely to be in prison and way more likely to be on social programs. Of course they vote for the Democrats. The republicans want them to become self sufficient and they dont like that. NOT ALL. WHen I say "they" Im talking about the ones who have no interest in getting a job so long as they can keep popping out more kids and getting fat welfare checks. White people by the percentages are more likely to not be in prison and more likely to have jobs. They tend to vote for Republicans and I even said some of them voted for Romney because he's NOT the black candidate, which makes them just as ignorant and stupid as the blacks who vote for the black candidate because he's black. Typical liberal responses. All emotion and no actual basis in reality. All assumptions trying to paint me into your neat tidy republican box. I dont live there and never have. [quote name="dak4n6" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/738#post_783615"] Taken directly from your ignorant stereotyping post: You did not say "SOME Asians, minorities, and blacks...". Omitting this implies that ALL Asians, minorities, and blacks believe in getting something for nothing. Again, when you say "They believe..." that means they ALL believe.[/quote]

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Someone needs to take China to task for their unfair trade practices, from intentionally maintaining a lower value to their money to allowing their manufacturing companies to violate patents.  If we want to get a significant number of people back to work, we need to become a manufacturering country again.  It's not in a businesses interest to build things here when it's so much cheaper in China.  Even the proud Japanese are out-sourcing to China.

Obama doesn't seem to view the threats from Iran and North Korea as seriously as I do.  I realize the sanctions are tough, but they need to be tougher.  Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.   I also believe we need to maintain a tighter relationship with Israel, not just because of the intelligence they provide us and their position in the middle east.  A tight relationship with Israel offers us input on any military actions they might take against countries in the middle east .

Issues like abortion and gay marriage play little in my decision for POTUS because ultimately other than SCOTUS appointees which must be approved by Congress the POTUS doesn't really get to dictate such policies.  For the record I'm pro for both issues.

What came from the exit polls and talking heads is that the majority of people don't understand or care about these issues, so thus their vote goes to whoever is willing to give them more.

Thanks -

China - Romney was going to confront them in an American way - which is insulting to the Chinese, and they would make certain that he would not get a deal. Obama understands that patience, negotiation, and bargaining in a quiet way is the way to make progress with the Chinese. Obama is more subtle, and patience is what works with the Chinese.

Iran - He is serious. He continued what Bush was doing and finally got tougher with sanctions, and it seems he is getting the remainder of the world in line. Israel looked at a military solution and said it could not do it alone. The military option will put the people of Iran against the West. Iranians already do not like their government - why not exploit that? I think Obama and the Allies will continue to work with sanctions and high tech sabotage. The Iranian currency is already reeling and their economy is crap ... getting worse. More pressure may have them at the table.

N. Korea? The only one who influences them is ... the Chinese. Another reason subtlety and patience is the answer.

[iacas]

This will apply to those who know it applies (and I'm thinking of three of you): no personal insults or the thread gets locked.

[Golfingdad]

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?

Random observation:  Those numbers look ridiculous when you write them out like that, rather than just say 1.3T or 80B.  Adds a little gravity to it, I think.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Random observation:  Those numbers look ridiculous when you write them out like that, rather than just say 1.3T or 80B.  Adds a little gravity to it, I think.

That's exactly why I did it. And to show that taking more money from millionaires has no effect on the deficit.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

That's exactly why I did it. And to show that taking more money from millionaires has no effect on the deficit.

While I don't agree with higher tax rates, let's look at the Bush tax Cuts .... A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it's a trillion or two or three...

Why not let them expire?

From tax foundation.org

The only place we could find a recent hindsight estimate of the cost of the Bush tax cuts came from the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice who used it as an opportunity to compare the Bush tax cuts' cost to health care reform. According to CTJ , the Bush tax cuts that were passed up through 2006 (the 2001 and 2003 cuts as well as other smaller cuts in 2004, 2005 and 2006) ended up costing the Treasury approximately $2.1 trillion in foregone revenue from 2001 to 2010. CTJ claims that if you add interest payments, that number goes up to around $2.5 trillion.

These numbers were calculated using CTJ's ITEP model. From what we could tell from their methodology paper, they assumed no feedback effect that would generate additional revenue. With that caveat, there is no reason to doubt these numbers. Therefore, the $2.1 trillion cost ($2.5 trillion with interest) on the Bush tax cuts is a high-end estimate.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

While I don't agree with higher tax rates, let's look at the Bush tax Cuts .... A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it's a trillion or two or three...

Why not let them expire?

It would take a THOUSAND billions to make a trillion.  That's a lot of billions.

Also, the totality of the Bush tax cuts impacts everyone, not just the uberwealthy.  For example, the lowest marginal tax rate of 10% would be raised to 15%. That would hugely increase the taxes on the little guy.

So...if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire without revision, then Obama would have to tell the American people "Remember when I said I wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class? Just kidding!"

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

It would take a THOUSAND billions to make a trillion.  That's a lot of billions.

Also, the totality of the Bush tax cuts impacts everyone, not just the uberwealthy.  For example, the lowest marginal tax rate of 10% would be raised to 15%. That would hugely increase the taxes on the little guy.

So...if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire without revision, then Obama would have to tell the American people "Remember when I said I wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class? Just kidding!"

Obama can make a deal now while holding the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts over Boehner's head; Or

He can let the cuts expire, and make a fiscal cliff deal afterwards.

I'd rather he make tax and entitlement reform now to settle the markets, and have a package of temporary business tax cuts to motivate employment.

But I've always thought the increase in the rate to the people over $250k was more symbolic although it would enhance revenue. The tax system is about fairness with fairness being subjective. While I do not agree that higher rates are necessary, I would enhance capital gain revenue and close the loophole on people like Romney, where Bain gets to turn ordinary income into capital gains. That needs to go and is an example of reform.

[x129]

Obama can't raise taxes. Only congress can do that. Obama can fight to keep middle class taxes low but if the republicans insist on raising them, there isn't much he can do. I am sure they will work out something eventually but I wouldn't be surprised if the republicans and democrats play chicken well into next year.

And cutting ~5% of the debt in not an insignificant number in my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonious

It would take a THOUSAND billions to make a trillion.  That's a lot of billions.

Also, the totality of the Bush tax cuts impacts everyone, not just the uberwealthy.  For example, the lowest marginal tax rate of 10% would be raised to 15%. That would hugely increase the taxes on the little guy.

So...if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire without revision, then Obama would have to tell the American people "Remember when I said I wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class? Just kidding!"