Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[Joakim]

The Real World Based on Real Life Experience…

I grew up as a young successful businessman. I sold and made components and assemblies for the Military Industry. I was part owner of a start up corporation at twenty one. I was taught how to run a profitable business without paying taxes. At 28 I opened my own Aerospace Manufacturing and supply company in part due to encouragement of my strong relationship with a very Large Military Manufacture, to put the Corporation under my wife’s name (Who is mostly Hispanic American Mixed). This gave them a Minority held Company to meet their Government Mandated Minority quota.

The Cold War was still escalating and Desert Storm broke out. Business was good. Every Tomahawk mislead deployed and Trident Nuclear Missiles stands, Stealth, etc., I proffered from them . I expanded and bought other Corporations. I was taught how to hide all my profits on Write Offs and switching monies around. I was taught by the best. I was referred to expert Tax Attorneys that are the best at hiding profits and I paid minimal to no taxes on clearing Hundreds of Thousands of dollars. I mingled with other successful businessman over a round of golf with tips on overseas and other avenues of cheating the Government. IT IS WHAT ALL SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES PEOPLE DO. I always felt bad about what I did, I was a sinner profiting off War and hiding my profits. I invested in another business outside Military dependence that was good and wholesome and potentially Millions in profits. I lost everything in this endeavor but I gained Peace from within.

I then went back to work and became a Manager of one of the top Electronics Companies in the World. My job was developing top end electronics, building the prototypes and having them made offshore as soon as possible. I was Outsourcing Jobs to China that could easily still be Manufactured In The USA but didn‘t because of less Tax expenses. I felt bad again about my profession. I went to work for the largest subcontractor of Boeing. I would go over my experience their, but some of you may never fly again.

My point is…

1) All businesses are structured for profits.

2) There are more dollars cheated from Tax shelters and Rich Corporate owners than Families on Welfare.

3) Giving money away for nothing is not Socialism but not good sense. You should try to get a return on your investment, instead of encouraging couch potatoes.

4) Cutting off all financial aid to a large sector IMHO… Will lead to frustration, anger and possibly a very deep depression effecting ALL Classes of life. I would not want to even fully speculate what this could lead to.

I'm sorry for the choices I made in my youth and career. I know there are many small businesses that play by the rules. I am thankfull for this forum to help me remember, if something feels bad, don't do it.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Joakim

The Real World Based on Real Life Experience…

I grew up as a young successful businessman. I sold and made components and assemblies for the Military Industry. I was part owner of a start up corporation at twenty one. I was taught how to run a profitable business without paying taxes. At 28 I opened my own Aerospace Manufacturing and supply company in part due to encouragement of my strong relationship with a very Large Military Manufacture, to put the Corporation under my wife’s name (Who is mostly Hispanic American Mixed).This gave them a Minority held Company to meet their Government Mandated Minority quota.

The Cold War was still escalating and Desert Storm broke out. Business was good. Every Tomahawk mislead deployed and Trident Nuclear Missiles stands, Stealth, etc., I proffered from them . I expanded and bought other Corporations. I was taught how to hide all my profits on Write Offs and switching monies around. I was taught by the best. I was referred to expert Tax Attorneys that are the best at hiding profits and I paid minimal to no taxes on clearing Hundreds of Thousands of dollars. I mingled with other successful businessman over a round of golf with tips on overseas and other avenues of cheating the Government. IT IS WHAT ALL SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES PEOPLE DO. I always felt bad about what I did, I was a sinner profiting off War and hiding my profits. I invested in another business outside Military dependence that was good and wholesome and potentially Millions in profits. I lost everything in this endeavor but I gained Peace from within.

I then went back to work and became a Manager of one of the top Electronics Companies in the World. My job was developing top end electronics, building the prototypes and having them made offshore as soon as possible. I was Outsourcing Jobs to China that could easily still be Manufactured In The USA but didn‘t because of less Tax expenses. I felt bad again about my profession. I went to work for the largest subcontractor of Boeing. I would go over my experience their, but some of you may never fly again.

My point is…

1) All businesses are structured for profits.

2) There are more dollars cheated from Tax shelters and Rich Corporate owners than Families on Welfare.

3) Giving money away for nothing is not Socialism but not good sense. You should try to get a return on your investment, instead of encouraging couch potatoes.

4) Cutting off all financial aid to a large sector IMHO… Will lead to frustration, anger and possibly a very deep depression effecting ALL Classes of life. I would not want to even fully speculate what this could lead to.

I'm sorry for the choices I made in my youth and career. I know there are many small businesses that play by the rules. I am thankfull for this forum to help me remember, if something feels bad, don't do it.

I highlighted two parts of your story.

Few would argue that one can't conduct business on a golf course.  But if there's someone who CAN argue that point, they have a subscription to The Sand Trap.

On the second point (the "couch potato" point) I agree wholeheartedly.  Wonder what would happen if we required a medical exam for anyone going on Welfare to determine their physical ability to work.  If they're physically able, then they can be put to work and compensated at a reasonable rate in a public-service short-term job (no more than the current limits on TANF, which I think is 5 years).

For example, if you put them to work building housing for low-income people who can't work (like those government-subsidized homes for the elderly who aren't able to provide for themselves) they would learn valuable construction skills that can be used to get a job in the construction industry.  Or you can put them on crews building and repairing roads and highways.  Or you can put them in jobs doing maintenance on public buildings and military installations, which would eliminate the massive contracts we currently dish out for grounds-crews and housekeeping services.

There's a reason illegal immigrants come to the country to work (though less than before) and that's because there are lots of jobs for unskilled workers.  If we put people on Welfare to work doing those jobs and used that income as part (or all) of their Welfare benefits, we would actually get a return on our investment in my opinion.

Not a perfect plan, by far, but certainly better than the way it's currently done in my opinion.

[Joakim]

Thank you, this was very personal for me. The problem that no candidate seems to be comprehend, is if there are 200 people applying for one job, there will still be 199 unemployed.

Business 101. You have a problem, what is your solution. I haven't heard solutions from either candidate.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I highlighted two parts of your story.

Few would argue that one can't conduct business on a golf course.  But if there's someone who CAN argue that point, they have a subscription to The Sand Trap.

On the second point (the "couch potato" point) I agree wholeheartedly.  Wonder what would happen if we required a medical exam for anyone going on Welfare to determine their physical ability to work.  If they're physically able, then they can be put to work and compensated at a reasonable rate in a public-service short-term job (no more than the current limits on TANF, which I think is 5 years).

For example, if you put them to work building housing for low-income people who can't work (like those government-subsidized homes for the elderly who aren't able to provide for themselves) they would learn valuable construction skills that can be used to get a job in the construction industry.  Or you can put them on crews building and repairing roads and highways.  Or you can put them in jobs doing maintenance on public buildings and military installations, which would eliminate the massive contracts we currently dish out for grounds-crews and housekeeping services.

There's a reason illegal immigrants come to the country to work (though less than before) and that's because there are lots of jobs for unskilled workers.  If we put people on Welfare to work doing those jobs and used that income as part (or all) of their Welfare benefits, we would actually get a return on our investment in my opinion.

Not a perfect plan, by far, but certainly better than the way it's currently done in my opinion.

BTW, Getting back to Golf it just brought back the memories of me walking around a green , trying to read a putt with one of those first Big Cell Phones, the call dropping every 5 minutes.

I would lay it down, hit my putt and get back to business. Ah, some good memories.

Your ideas are what is needed and I just don't understand why any of these candidates are not laying out a platform strategy for Creation of Jobs. Personally, I would have a summit of all the Top CEO's and get their input and buy in on how to create more jobs. Give them incentives, tax cuts for domestic manufacturing and support. Create penalties for illegal imigration jobs, and tax Imports increases.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by dave67az

On the second point (the "couch potato" point) I agree wholeheartedly.  Wonder what would happen if we required a medical exam for anyone going on Welfare to determine their physical ability to work.  If they're physically able, then they can be put to work and compensated at a reasonable rate in a public-service short-term job (no more than the current limits on TANF, which I think is 5 years).

For example, if you put them to work building housing for low-income people who can't work (like those government-subsidized homes for the elderly who aren't able to provide for themselves) they would learn valuable construction skills that can be used to get a job in the construction industry.  Or you can put them on crews building and repairing roads and highways.  Or you can put them in jobs doing maintenance on public buildings and military installations, which would eliminate the massive contracts we currently dish out for grounds-crews and housekeeping services.

There's a reason illegal immigrants come to the country to work (though less than before) and that's because there are lots of jobs for unskilled workers.  If we put people on Welfare to work doing those jobs and used that income as part (or all) of their Welfare benefits, we would actually get a return on our investment in my opinion.

Not a perfect plan, by far, but certainly better than the way it's currently done in my opinion.

This is the type of "welfare" that I'm in favor of.  If a person is able bodied and for some reason still wants to be on the public dole, then they can work for us.  They can pick up trash in our parks and on our streets.  They can serve as crossing guards for our public schools.  There are any number of ways that they can be employed in the public sector to earn the right to that check.  And just maybe that might inspire many of them to get out and find real jobs when they learn that there's no longer a free ticket.  That's essentially what FDR's work programs (CCC, WPA) were during the Depression, workers paid by the government for working on public works jobs which were created just for that purpose.  Despite the hardships that many of those jobs entailed, men jumped at the chance to do honest work for room and  board and a small wage.  For many, it gave them back the self respect they had lost through years of unemployment.   Today's welfare recipients should be treated no differently.  Find a area of need and give them some work to do for that check.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

This is the type of "welfare" that I'm in favor of.  If a person is able bodied and for some reason still wants to be on the public dole, then they can work for us.  They can pick up trash in our parks and on our streets.  They can serve as crossing guards for our public schools.  There are any number of ways that they can be employed in the public sector to earn the right to that check.  And just maybe that might inspire many of them to get out and find real jobs when they learn that there's no longer a free ticket.  That's essentially what FDR's work programs (CCC, WPA) were during the Depression, workers paid by the government for working on public works jobs which were created just for that purpose.  Despite the hardships that many of those jobs entailed, men jumped at the chance to do honest work for room and  board and a small wage.  For many, it gave them back the self respect they had lost through years of unemployment.   Today's welfare recipients should be treated no differently.  Find a area of need and give them some work to do for that check.

With no income or food, just plain life sustainance would be a relief to the homeless. They might need access to some affordable health services.  As a nation, can we deny an individual that yearns for this minimal opportunity? It's not Socialism if an individual is willing to earn their existance.

[David in FL]

It's not Socialism if an individual is willing to earn their existance.

Really?! :-\ [quote name="Fourputt" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/468#post_781203"] This is the type of "welfare" that I'm in favor of.  If a person is able bodied and for some reason still wants to be on the public dole, then they can work for us.  They can pick up trash in our parks and on our streets.  They can serve as crossing guards for our public schools.  There are any number of ways that they can be employed in the public sector to earn the right to that check.  And just maybe that might inspire many of them to get out and find real jobs when they learn that there's no longer a free ticket.  That's essentially what FDR's work programs (CCC, WPA) were during the Depression, workers paid by the government for working on public works jobs which were created just for that purpose.  Despite the hardships that many of those jobs entailed, men jumped at the chance to do honest work for room and  board and a small wage.  For many, it gave them back the self respect they had lost through years of unemployment.   Today's welfare recipients should be treated no differently.  Find a area of need and give them some work to do for that check. [/quote] Exactly this.

[Mr. Desmond]

President-elect Romney doesn't play enough golf.

Senate Democrats complain they want him on the course. "We must return him to the center of the green, he's always end up right - in the bunkers," says Harry Reid. "The man needs guidance."

Tea Party in an uproar as President Romney moves to center - Impeachment proceeding threatened as ObamaCare not repealed, only revised. Romney says we spend too much on defense already -"Do you realize we spend more than the next 17 nations combined? I had no idea," says President Romney. In Tax Reform news, Romney proposes tax on millionaires to reduce deficit, says he will reform entitlement programs, too. "We've got to make those 47% work." When informed that 80% of the 47% already work, President Romney said - "See, my plan is already working."

"Who is this guy?" Nation asks. "An alien shape-shifter? An early X-Man?"

And all this on Day 1.

Whew.

[reflection]

I'm not a big fan of politics so I don't have as much background info as some of you guys, so I'm asking for some feedback regarding this WSJ article.  Thoughts?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203335504578086450730075938.html

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Wrong again. National defense is one of the functions that the federal government is required to do under the Constitution.

As is promoting the general welfare.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

All of the above with the exception of the interstate highway system are more appropriately administered and funded at the state and local level. I'll even grant you some medical research funding and a VERY few, select national parks that are so special as to be recognized as unique, National Treasures. The rest? Nope.

I'm not going to play, "well what about this" games though. Either you understand and believe in a federalist system, or you believe in something much more statist. Certainly there are varying degrees, but the current administration is FAR beyond what I consider appropriate and Obama would like to continue down that road even further. Current Republicans aren't a heckuva lot better, but they are better.

Federal spending is down under Obama. Taxes are down under Obama. Now what?

But apparently you pick and choose what you like from the Constitution to the detriment of things like promoting the general welfare.

Seriously, I am no Obama apologist, but let's stop pretending that all the problems we face in this country started in January of 2009.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by reflection

I'm not a big fan of politics so I don't have as much background info as some of you guys, so I'm asking for some feedback regarding this WSJ article.  Thoughts?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203335504578086450730075938.html

I'm not a big fan either and I really never had the time or patience to listen to combantant banter. Honestly this election I'm more concerned with than any other, as I believe it is a criticical period in Country. However with my limited political knowledge, I can do simple math.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/22/romney-wants-to-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion-but-what-will-he-use-it-for/

Romney= 2 trillion divided by 10 years= 800 Billion expense over term.

Obama 2.5 Billion investment gamble minus Romney = 797.5 Billion decrease in Favor of Obama .

I would say if elected Obama hopefully learned some things during his term. He should probably devise an Economic Advisement team and drive his Edsel to the golf Course.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by reflection

I'm not a big fan of politics so I don't have as much background info as some of you guys, so I'm asking for some feedback regarding this WSJ article.  Thoughts?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203335504578086450730075938.html

Thoughts?

Not worth the internet space on which it appeared.

A slam piece not worthy of a pre-Murdoch WSJ.

[phan52]

I wonder what the right wing minimalist ideology thinks about FEMA? At least we know that Romney would abolish it. Sorry NYC, NJ, PA, Conn, etc. No disaster coordination for you.

At least our golf course didn't flood, as it is wont to do, but we lost some serious specimen trees. But don't worry guys, we are paying for our own cleanup.

[dave67az]

The U.S has now seen 13 straight quarters (over 3 years) of GDP growth.

Home prices are rebounding steadily.  They're now at the same level they were in 2003, a time when they were gradually increasing before they peaked in 2006.

Chrysler 3rd quarter profits are up 80% from the same time a year ago, and contrary to one of our presidential candidates, they are NOT moving Jeep production from the U.S. to China.  What they ARE doing is expanding, with a new production plant planned in China set to build Jeeps for use in China, opening a new market for them.

$700 billion was approved for TARP, then it was reduced to $475 billion in July 2010.  So far 924 recipients have received a total of $417 billion.  About $6 billion of that was money that the government knew it would never get back (housing programs, etc).  Of the 779 investments that they hoped would return money to the taxpayers, 361 have already resulted in a profit totaling $36 billion and 42 have resulted in a loss totaling $5 billion.  The remainder are still paying the loans off, with an expected profit for taxpayers.  So how much has been paid back so far?  Of the $417 billion distributed, over $345 billion has already been returned and an additional $42 billion in revenue (interest, etc) has been made.  That leaves only about $30 billion outstanding (a little over 7% of the initial investment) which should be paid off soon.

So before anyone goes spouting off their mouths about how much money Bush and Obama lost on their bailouts, at least have the numbers right.

The economy is not the problem right now, as far as I can tell--I guess Romney was able to fix the economy without even taking office .  It's kind of like how Obama was able to destroy the economy before he even took office, and how Bush was able to continue destroying the economy after he left office.  Yes, it's sarcasm.  If presidents had that much power over the economy, we would never had economic problems because no presidents want to go down in history as the one who crashed the markets.  Just my two cents.

The problem is excessive government spending.  That starts with the president when he submits the budget proposals to congress.  Congress then has to revise it, sign it, and send it back.  It's not ALL the president's problem so to blame any president is to ignore the lack of effort from both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to cutting spending.  Doesn't matter if you want to spend the money on the poor, on the middle class, or on businesses and corporations.  We can't afford to keep spending that much more than we take in.

The quickest way to solve the deficit problem is most likely a combination of spending cuts and tax increases (or simply reduction of tax credits/loopholes/deductions).  But there's no way you can increase taxes enough to pay for our current spending.  Nor can you simply reduce spending enough to eliminate the deficit and leave taxes alone (without jeopardizing the health, safety, and security of our country, that is).

In any case, the economy is certainly improving (hell, housing prices in my area, one of the hardest hit by the crash, are up 30% over the past year or so).

Do Democrats get credit for the economy?  No.

Do Republicans get credit for the economy?  No.

Do the economic "experts" get any credit for any of it?  No.  They aren't even bright enough to see a crash before it happens, let alone predict a recovery.  They're the ones who thought giving the money to the banks would be a great idea assuming that the banks would then loan that money out to their customers rather than hoard it for themselves.  Yeah...wrong.  If your business is losing money and you get an injection of capital, you distribute it to compensate for losses--you don't use it to invest in more risky ventures.

NOAA predicts the weather better than economists predict economic events.

I get a little tired of people pointing fingers at ONE MAN (both sides do it, too) blaming everything on him.

I swear I was probably 6 years old when I learned finger-pointing wasn't right.

Did none of these people have parents that taught them what mine did?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

Wrong again. National defense is one of the functions that the federal government is required to do under the Constitution.

As is promoting the general welfare.

:Promoting the general welfare has nothing to do with a public welfare dole.  The founding fathers would weep if they knew how you are trying to interpret it.  All it means is maintaining an environment in which the citizenry can prosper.  Strong national defense so that they need not fear foreign attack.  A financial atmosphere that promotes growth and employment.  The only way that corporations grow is from the top down, and anyone who can't see that is wearing blinders.

A commercial enterprise usually starts as an idea of one or two people.  They work their tails off for years to make that idea a reality.  They prosper, expand, hire others to work with, then for them.  They hire managers to take over the day to day operations and manage the growing work force.  Probably they get wealthy, but much of that wealth is reinvested in their own endeavors, and in others.  If they hadn't started the company and grown rich, those 50, or 100 or 1000 jobs wouldn't exist.  That is how you promote the general welfare, not by taking what is erroneously perceived as excess for taxes, then giving it away as welfare to people who could be working for that company.  That isn't "promoting welfare", that's forced charity.

Promoting the general welfare doesn't mean incurring a national debt of 16 trillion dollars and climbing, yet doing absolutely nothing about it.   That's more than the entire GDP for 2011.  Think of how bad it is for an ordinary citizen to try and pay a credit card debt of $20,000 by just paying the minimum each month.  You end up paying several times the original debt, take years to do it, but eventually you do pay it off.  Now imagine that you are making the minimum payment, then going out and borrowing more than that payment each month.  This is what the federal government is doing.  Congress and the President make a big deal about agreeing on a budget each year.  They even threaten to shut down the government if they can't agree.  A budget is supposed to be based on income.   You don't budget spending if you can't fund it with income.  Washington hasn't apparently figured that out.  They haven't had a true budget in more years than I've been around.  What they haggle over each year is a shopping list which cares not one whit how much income is actually available.  Make sure every Congressman's pork gets paid for first off the top of the barrel, then go deeper in debt to actually run the country.  And the sad thing is that this so-called "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" won't allow the people to do a damn thing about it.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

:Promoting the general welfare has nothing to do with a public welfare dole.  The founding fathers would weep if they knew how you are trying to interpret it.  All it means is maintaining an environment in which the citizenry can prosper.  Strong national defense so that they need not fear foreign attack.  A financial atmosphere that promotes growth and employment.  The only way that corporations grow is from the top down, and anyone who can't see that is wearing blinders.

A commercial enterprise usually starts as an idea of one or two people.  They work their tails off for years to make that idea a reality.  They prosper, expand, hire others to work with, then for them.  They hire managers to take over the day to day operations and manage the growing work force.  Probably they get wealthy, but much of that wealth is reinvested in their own endeavors, and in others.  If they hadn't started the company and grown rich, those 50, or 100 or 1000 jobs wouldn't exist.  That is how you promote the general welfare, not by taking what is erroneously perceived as excess for taxes, then giving it away as welfare to people who could be working for that company.  That isn't "promoting welfare", that's forced charity.

Promoting the general welfare doesn't mean incurring a national debt of 16 trillion dollars and climbing, yet doing absolutely nothing about it.   That's more than the entire GDP for 2011.  Think of how bad it is for an ordinary citizen to try and pay a credit card debt of $20,000 by just paying the minimum each month.  You end up paying several times the original debt, take years to do it, but eventually you do pay it off.  Now imagine that you are making the minimum payment, then going out and borrowing more than that payment each month.  This is what the federal government is doing.  Congress and the President make a big deal about agreeing on a budget each year.  They even threaten to shut down the government if they can't agree.  A budget is supposed to be based on income.   You don't budget spending if you can't fund it with income.  Washington hasn't apparently figured that out.  They haven't had a true budget in more years than I've been around.  What they haggle over each year is a shopping list which cares not one whit how much income is actually available.  Make sure every Congressman's pork gets paid for first off the top of the barrel, then go deeper in debt to actually run the country.  And the sad thing is that this so-called "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" won't allow the people to do a damn thing about it.

Agreed.  I will say that people living in poverty is a threat to the welfare of everyone, but if they CAN work, they NEED to be put to work.

This goes for the people who decided to collect unemployment rather than find whatever work was available no matter how little it paid.  We saw plenty of that, as the people collecting unemployment begged to have their benefits extended so they wouldn't have to take lower paying jobs.

I'm sure there were a lot of cases where there just weren't enough jobs available, but I'm also sure that there were people who decided "hey, if they pay me for not working, I'd be an idiot not to take the money, right?"

It's a sickness, and it doesn't just affect those people receiving welfare so let's not single out able-bodied-but-non-working "poor" people as though they're the only leeches out there.  There are poor people who are poor by no fault of their own with no hope except for the help they receive from others.  There are also people who receive benefits (not just welfare) who don't "need" it but are just taking advantage of a broken system.

As for our elected representatives, I've always said we have the best politicians money can buy.  If it's not lobbyists trying to buy their votes, it's politicians using blackmail techniques, refusing to vote a certain way on a bill unless their pork-barrel project is included.

Still, we have nobody to blame but ourselves because we're the ones who put them in office.  Yet we continue to "hire" professional politicians to run the country, so long as they're endorsed by either the Democrats or Republicans (in most cases).

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

:Promoting the general welfare has nothing to do with a public welfare dole.  The founding fathers would weep if they knew how you are trying to interpret it.  All it means is maintaining an environment in which the citizenry can prosper.  Strong national defense so that they need not fear foreign attack.  A financial atmosphere that promotes growth and employment.  The only way that corporations grow is from the top down, and anyone who can't see that is wearing blinders.

Yeah, like that's what I said. Excuse me, but you have a very bad habit of putting words in my mouth. You have no idea who I am (which has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last couple of days) so don't try to speak for me. Please.

And BTW, yes, welfare for people who need it is very much a part of promoting the general welfare. But people like you have a habit of lumping everybody in need into a gathering of mooches and leeches. Just like the term "redisitribution" has morphed into some kind of general acceptance of socialism in certain circles. Let me make something very clear. Without the stimulus package of 2009, we would have ended up in a hole that we could never get out of because of the staggeringly horrific fiscal and foreign policies of the Bush Administration. It'll take a while to get out now, but at least the stimulus stopped the precipitous slide. Sometimes government needs to step in and do the right thing. Like PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.