Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Your numbers are factually misleading at best.    The Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers clearly show that at no time during the Bush presidency was there less people working than there is right now.   Furthermore, those same statistics show that only in 2008, did the actual number of employed Americans drop lower in than any previous year and the 2008 numbers were higher than 2006.

But, that has nothing to do with this thread..........

I laugh at the idea that a sitting President should be chastised for playing golf (or any other form of recreation).   As someone else pointed out, the job of President is a 24/7 job for 4 years (or more).    Regardless of where he is or what he is doing, the POTUS is "on the clock" and on call.    If anyone in the private sector was subjected to that, they would cry foul.

Even though I firmly Obama is a socialist of the first order and should not get a second term, I do think the guy should be allowed to take a few hours once in a while to do something he enjoys doing.

There is no question that the Bush policies were responsible for the unemployment numbers until Obama's stimulus was able to take hold. The US was hemorrhaging jobs at a distressing rate through 2009 (at one point as high as 750,000 per month and getting over 10%) and nobody can blame anything Obama did for that. It finally stabilized and started downward at the end of 2009, but 2009 was all Bush.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It may not be absurd, but it's a lot more than the typical golfer plays who has to work full time and take care of his family.  It's about twice as much as I ever had time for until I retired, and I consider myself an avid golfer.  An argument could be made that Obama's (or any president's) first duty is to the country, not to his golf swing.  I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity for a bit of down time, but to spend 50% more time on the golf course than the average golfing citizen does nothing for his image.

How's that for skating around the obvious political aspects of the question?

Sorry, but 15 rounds of golf is not the definition of an "avid" golfer. Not even close. You putter around (pun intended) with golf, at best.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by phan52

Sorry, but 15 rounds of golf is not the definition of an "avid" golfer. Not even close. You putter around (pun intended) with golf, at best.

Quantity of rounds has little or nothing to do with a person's aviddity (made that up ), or avidness towards golf.  I have never - until this year - played more than 15 rounds of golf in one year and I have always considered myself an avid golfer.  (This year I at about 20 or so ... along with practicing at the range an average of twice a week)

Being into golf enough to join this website and spend a lot of time talking about a sport you are obsessed with (no matter how often you get to actually play it)is probably a better test of whether or not you are avid about golf.

But technically you are right ... 15 rounds IS NOT the definition of avid golfer, not even close.  What is close:

Enthusiastic, ardent, keen, devoted, dedicated, zealous, fanatic, at least 25 rounds of golf a year, extremely desirous, eager, hungry, greedy, covetous, insatiable.

PS ... Most of those definitions are from dictionary.com but one of them is made up.  Bet you can't guess which one.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quantity of rounds has little or nothing to do with a person's aviddity (made that up ), or avidness towards golf.  I have never - until this year - played more than 15 rounds of golf in one year and I have always considered myself an avid golfer.  (This year I at about 20 or so ... along with practicing at the range an average of twice a week)

Being into golf enough to join this website and spend a lot of time talking about a sport you are obsessed with (no matter how often you get to actually play it)is probably a better test of whether or not you are avid about golf.

But technically you are right ... 15 rounds IS NOT the definition of avid golfer, not even close.  What is close:

Enthusiastic, ardent, keen, devoted, dedicated, zealous, fanatic, at least 25 rounds of golf a year, extremely desirous, eager, hungry, greedy, covetous, insatiable.

PS ... Most of those definitions are from dictionary.com but one of them is made up.  Bet you can't guess which one.

You can't be an avid golfer if you play a little more than once a month. And you certainly won't get any better, so what is the point other than recreation? One of the obsessions of avid golfers is constant improvement. If you go out once a month and knock it around you are playing golf, but you are not a golfer. And certainly not an "avid" one.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by MSchott

They are facts but as with any statistics should be put into context which you conveniently chose not to do.

They are perfectly in context when the discussion is the unemployment rate in this country, which is what I responded to with my original post on this matter.

It's funny how people use the phrase "out of context" when what they really mean is, it makes my position look bad.

Mr. Desmond says we should use the same honesty in this discussion that one uses on the course.   I agree.   In golf, if you incur a two-stroke penalty and ulitimately card a 73, you could change the context and (honestly) say you only made 71 strokes.   That sounds better but doesn't tell the complete truth.  The final result is still a 73 and that is what goes on your card, regardless of how you got there.   Was there any need to change the context?  Depends on your point of view.   Maybe in your own mind there was, so you could justify something in your own mind or to brag about your accomplishment.  Yet the bottom line remains, the final score was a 73.

The same applies here.   You can change the context and spin the numbers how ever you want, blaming things on Bush if that sounds better to you but the bottom line is, the numbers show the unemployment rate under Obama reached a historical high that has only been met or exceeded three other times since those statistics have been kept.

Numbers do not lie, nor do they try to put a spin on themselves.  Sadly, people do both.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by phan52

There is no question that the Bush policies were responsible for the unemployment numbers until Obama's stimulus was able to take hold. The US was hemorrhaging jobs at a distressing rate through 2009 (at one point as high as 750,000 per month and getting over 10%) and nobody can blame anything Obama did for that. It finally stabilized and started downward at the end of 2009, but 2009 was all Bush.

Again, factually wrong.   The unemployment rate has not hit 10% at anytime since 1941.   As I pointed out already, the highest unemployment rate since 1983 is 9.6% and that happened in 2010.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

They are perfectly in context when the discussion is the unemployment rate in this country, which is what I responded to with my original post on this matter.

It's funny how people use the phrase "out of context" when what they really mean is, it makes my position look bad.

Mr. Desmond says we should use the same honesty in this discussion that one uses on the course.   I agree.   In golf, if you incur a two-stroke penalty and ulitimately card a 73, you could change the context and (honestly) say you only made 71 strokes.   That sounds better but doesn't tell the complete truth.  The final result is still a 73 and that is what goes on your card, regardless of how you got there.   Was there any need to change the context?  Depends on your point of view.   Maybe in your own mind there was, so you could justify  something in your own mind or to brag about your accomplishment.  Yet the bottom line remains, the final score was a 73.

The same applies here.   You can change the context and spin the numbers how ever you want, blaming things on Bush if that sounds better to you but the bottom line is, the numbers show the unemployment rate under Obama reached a historical high that has only been met or exceeded three other times since those statistics have been kept.

Numbers do not lie, nor do they try to put a spin on themselves.  Sadly, people do both.

When you decide to compare unemployment rates among President's and don't consider the economic realities when they entered office then you are making a fair comparison. You are trying to make Obama look bad with numbers when the reality is he was dealt a bad hand to start with. I didn't mention Bush at all but the economy was in the worst situation since the Great Depression when Obama took office and we were bleeding jobs. Without that context you are being unfair and I have no doubt you are doing it on purpose which is as disingenuous as can be. Placing that on Obama is dishonest.

[hanalei]

" the numbers show the unemployment rate under Obama reached a historical high that has only been met or exceeded three other times since those statistics have been kept.     Numbers do not lie, nor do they try to put a spin on themselves.  Sadly, people do both.[/quote" Last I remember I was unemployed because of greedy banks trading derivatives under the bush administration and an Internet bubble created by stupid investors who thought eggs.com was the future. Sick of retards blaming political party's and presidents for unemployment. Most of which who have never known unemployment or why they lost there job.. Naive bolstering....

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by phan52

You can't be an avid golfer if you play a little more than once a month. And you certainly won't get any better, so what is the point other than recreation? One of the obsessions of avid golfers is constant improvement. If you go out once a month and knock it around you are playing golf, but you are not a golfer. And certainly not an "avid" one.

Yeah, you said that already.  Again, being avid about playing golf isn't how many times you play.

[newtogolf]

While I don't want to get into another political discussion you can't limit the blame to GW.  First, both Obama and McCain knew what the economic situation was when they ran for office and made their campaign promises.  You didn't have to be a genius to figure out whoever won was going to have a tough 4 years.

Holding Obama to the economic performance of the country over the last four years is no different than his blaming GW for the real estate collapse and high number of mortgage foreclosures that was partially caused by Clinton and the democrats pushing legislation to ease home ownership requirements and banks getting greedy.

Revisionist history exists on both sides.

Originally Posted by MSchott

When you decide to compare unemployment rates among President's and don't consider the economic realities when they entered office then you are making a fair comparison. You are trying to make Obama look bad with numbers when the reality is he was dealt a bad hand to start with. I didn't mention Bush at all but the economy was in the worst situation since the Great Depression when Obama took office and we were bleeding jobs. Without that context you are being unfair and I have no doubt you are doing it on purpose which is as disingenuous as can be. Placing that on Obama is dishonest.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by MSchott

When you decide to compare unemployment rates among President's and don't consider the economic realities when they entered office then you are making a fair comparison. You are trying to make Obama look bad with numbers when the reality is he was dealt a bad hand to start with. I didn't mention Bush at all but the economy was in the worst situation since the Great Depression when Obama took office and we were bleeding jobs. Without that context you are being unfair and I have no doubt you are doing it on purpose which is as disingenuous as can be. Placing that on Obama is dishonest.

Just who is putting the spin on now?

You start off by saying "When you decide to compare unemployment rates among President's and don't consider the economic realities when they entered office then you are making a fair comparison." This is exactly what I did.   In addition to Obama, I listed Bush, Clinton and, even though I did not list them by name, I also listed numbers for FDR and Reagan (the three other times the unemployment rate has been at or above 9.6%).  All without discussing economics.

I posted straightforward, factual numbers in response to incorrect data.  You chose to put a spin on them.   Tell me again who is being disingenuous?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Again, factually wrong.   The unemployment rate has not hit 10% at anytime since 1941.   As I pointed out already, the highest unemployment rate since 1983 is 9.6% and that happened in 2010.

Wrong. It hit 10% in October of 2009 and started trending down very slowly after that. That's the Bush legacy at work.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Just who is putting the spin on now?

You start off by saying "When you decide to compare unemployment rates among President's and don't consider the economic realities when they entered office then you are making a fair comparison."      This is exactly what I did.   In addition to Obama, I listed Bush, Clinton and, even though I did not list them by name, I also listed numbers for FDR and Reagan (the three other times the unemployment rate has been at or above 9.6%).  All without discussing economics.

I posted straightforward, factual numbers in response to incorrect data.  You chose to put a spin on them.   Tell me again who is being disingenuous?

You are the one with incorrect data. Disingenuous, indeed.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by phan52

Wrong. It hit 10% in October of 2009 and started trending down very slowly after that. That's the Bush legacy at work.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

I looked at those numbers by year because employment rates and the corresponding unemployment rates fluctuate more between months due to factors such as seasonal hiring, whereas the rates when viewed by the year give a better overall picture (in my opinion) of the actual state of unemployment.  But, I will admit I am wrong.   Apparently unemployment did hit 10% for one month.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by phan52

You are the one with incorrect data. Disingenuous, indeed.

Again, my data is based on the full year.   I stand by it for the very reasons I stated.   Employment and unemployment rates fluctuate from month to month and looking at the full year gives a better picture of the overall state of employment.

Disingenuous?  Not hardly.   Swayed by ONE MONTH?   Not at all.   Swayed by years worth of data?   You bet!

[teamroper60]

Here is one piece of data I quoted : http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods;_option=specific_periods&periods;=Annual+Data

[teamroper60]

Here is another: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm

[Mr. Desmond]

Look, I don't have an opinion on whether he golfs too much -- this is what I think. He knows what works for him - if he thinks that getting outside will help his mood, disposition, and temperament, I'm all for some abbreviated rounds - and the facts are that he rarely plays 18 holes.

As to the recession, this morning in the NY TImes and that noted liberal economist, Krugman. But he makes some good points, and looking back at what Republicans did, he has the facts.

____

The U.S. economy finally seems to be recovering in earnest, with housing on the rebound and job creation outpacing growth in the working-age population. But the news is good, not great — it will still take years to restore full employment — and it has been a very long time coming. Why has the slump been so protracted?

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Go to Columnist Page »

Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

Related in Opinion

More on United States Elections »

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT .

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (504) »

The answer — backed by overwhelming evidence — is that this is what normally happens after a severe financial crisis. But Mitt Romney’s economic team rejects that evidence. And this denialism bodes ill for policy if Mr. Romney wins next month.

About the evidence: The most famous study is by Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, who looked at past financial crises and found that such crises are typically followed by years of high unemployment and weak growth. Later work by economists at the International Monetary Fund and elsewhere confirmed this analysis: crises that followed a sharp run-up in private-sector debt, from the U.S. Panic of 1893 to the Swedish banking crisis of the early 1990s, cast long shadows over the economy’s future. There was no reason to believe that this time would be different.

This isn’t an after-the-fact rationalization. The Reinhart-Rogoff “aftermath” paper was released almost four years ago. And a number of other economists , including, well, me, issued similar warnings. In early 2008 I was already pointing out the distinction between recessions like 1973-5 or 1981-2, brought on by high interest rates, and “postmodern” recessions brought on by private-sector overreach. And I suggested that the recession we were then entering would be followed by a prolonged “jobless recovery” that would feel like a continuing recession.

Why is recovery from a financial crisis slow? Financial crises are preceded by credit bubbles; when those bubbles burst, many families and/or companies are left with high levels of debt, which force them to slash their spending. This slashed spending, in turn, depresses the economy as a whole.

And the usual response to recession, cutting interest rates to encourage spending, isn’t adequate. Many families simply can’t spend more, and interest rates can be cut only so far — namely, to zero but not below.

Does this mean that nothing can be done to avoid a protracted slump after a financial crisis? No, it just means that you have to do more than just cut interest rates. In particular, what the economy really needs after a financial crisis is a temporary increase in government spending, to sustain employment while the private sector repairs its balance sheet. And the Obama administration did some of that, blunting the severity of the financial crisis. Unfortunately, the stimulus was both too small and too short-lived, partly because of administration errors but mainly because of scorched-earth Republican obstruction.