Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[David in FL]

That's logic. Your first statement, however, was not. Your first statement, that voting for someone who has flaws is insanity, is nothing more than partisan rhetoric with the implication that your party's candidate has no flaws. You say a lot of things that make sense in the forum, then you turn right around and make a remark that makes you sound like the blindly-obedient party followers that most of us independent voters find offensive.  Seriously, it'd be like if Romney was in a Debate with Obama and out of nowhere goes "Oh yeah?!  Well YOU'RE FLAWED!!" Is the debt bigger than four years ago?  Yep.  Is part of it Bush's fault?  Yep.  Is part of it Obama's fault?  Oh yeah.  Were we in a recession four years ago when Obama took office?  Yep, things were headed downhill.  Are they still headed downhill?  According to everything I've seen, nope.  Market is rebounding, home prices are rebounding, GDP is growing steadily.  Can you give full credit to Obama for that?  Nope, but then again I don't believe Bush crashed the economy either.  Is it taking longer to recover than most of the experts thought four years ago?  Yep.  Was Obama naive for listening to experts who told him things would be "fixed" in just a few years?  Yep.  But guess what...the economy is growing again.  So the experts were right in that we would be growing again soon, we (a lot of us) were just guilty of thinking (hoping) that this would mean in a few years we'd be right back where we were when the economy was booming in 2006. What has Obama done that I don't like?  Well, for one, he's weakened our position on illegal immigration and we still don't have a secure border.  That bothers me tremendously because I happen to live in a state where it's a big deal.  I also know that after 9/11 we postulated that since tightening air security and expanding "no fly" lists that the next incursion by terrorists will probably come by land.  We have this little nuclear power plant west of Phoenix that is at risk now because the guy in the White House isn't willing to do what's necessary to secure the border. I also don't like the Democrat's stance on unions.  Labor unions were created at a time when we didn't have a lot of government intervention, and the only way to ensure good, safe working conditions and fair wages was for the workers themselves to unite.  Well, now we have a robust Labor department and OSHA regulations and I honestly don't see a need for unions any more.  I honestly think they do more harm than good.  I've had friends who were unionized and it's ridiculous to me the rules they have in place.  Can't work/think "outside the box" because it wasn't negotiated in the contract.  Can't give that "extra effort" at work because you'll make the rest of the guys in the union look bad and giving 110% would violate maximum production quotas.  I look at what unions did to my favorite sports and, if you ask me, they ruined them.  I can't even watch hockey now because of the unions.  Guys don't play because it's fun any more.  Money is their driving force.  Pretty sad if you ask me. But for all the things I don't like about Obama, I can think of just as many, if not more, things I don't like about Romney.  Throwing money at military equipment when everyone else is having to cut back makes absolutely no sense to me.  To set a minimum military budget that HAS to be spent whether the Pentagon is asking for that money or not is wasteful.  You were in the military, you know how military budgets work.  Around late summer, a list goes out from every commander.  Okay folks, tell us what you want for your offices because we have money we have to spend before October 1st.  We did it EVERY YEAR.  I was Resource Advisor for a while, and the last few years I supervised the Resource Advisor, so I know how much money we threw away.  And it happens in every unit, on every base, and I'm betting it isn't just the Air Force.  And Romney wants to throw MORE money at the military?  Why, so we can build more ships?  We don't need more ships!  The reason we don't have as many ships is because (1) they're bigger and more efficient now and (2) we have no real naval threats any more.  Who are we building them to fight?  Is there a hidden Navy in Atlantis that we're afraid is going to rise up?  Are terrorists building a navy we don't know about?  The fact that he wants to set a MINIMUM budget for the military tells me all I need to know about whether he's really going to cut spending anywhere. You say you're voting for him because of your daughter's future.  So tell me...how exactly is increasing military spending going to help her?  He's said he's going to cut taxes, but the Democrats are right in that he hasn't said how he's going to pay for those tax cuts. So yeah, I can totally see why someone would vote for Obama even though he has flaws.  And it's not insanity.  It's called "weighing the issues".  Romney wants to boost the economy by building an even bigger military and cutting taxes (both of which will add to the deficit).  I guess if adding to the deficit will help the economy, then Romney certainly has bigger plans than Obama.  Personally I was hoping the Republicans would nominate someone who would actually CUT budgets rather than EXPAND them.  What the hell is wrong with your party dude?!!?!?!

I may have been giving to much credit when I didn't complete what I considered to be a well known quote........the definition of insanity being to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. My apologies. I won't make an assumption like that again.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I may have been giving to much credit when I didn't complete what I considered to be a well known quote........the definition of insanity being to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

My apologies. I won't make an assumption like that again.

You're right.  Nobody should expect anything different than what we've seen the last four years.  One less war.  Growing economy.  Increasing military benefits for veterans (at the cost of higher TRICARE premiums, but you can thank McCain for pushing that one forward).  The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a great example.  Finally someone who cares about the PEOPLE in the military instead of just the EQUIPMENT and the contractors.

Read this and ask yourself this:  Why does Mitt Romney think that you can compare today's military fleet with the fleet in World War II?  This is what happens when you get a business guy in the White House.  He tries to run it like a business and increase production as though that's going to help us?  So what...next time Iran gets stupid we're going to invade with a Navy?

"As Commander-in-Chief, Mitt Romney will keep faith with the men and women who defend us just as he will ensure that our military capabilities are matched to the interests we need to protect. He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year, which will include three submarines per year.

...

Mitt Romney will also find efficiencies throughout the Department of Defense budget that can be reinvested into the force. The Department’s bureaucracy is bloated to the point of dysfunction and is ripe for being pared. In the years since 2000, the Pentagon’s civilian staff grew by 20 percent while our active duty fighting force grew by only 3.4 percent. That imbalance needs to be rectified. During World War II the United States built 1,000 ships per year with 1,000 people employed in the Bureau of Ships, as the purchasing department of the Department of the Navy was then called. By the 1980s, we were building seventeen ships per year, with 4,000 people in purchasing. Today, when we are building only nine ships a year, the Pentagon manages the shipbuilding process with some 25,000 people. That kind of excess must be brought to an end along with the byzantine rules and wasteful practices that riddle the military procurement process."

It's like he doesn't even realize how much cheaper it is to higher a civilian than active duty military!!

[iacas]

If you want to respond to multiple posts, please multiquote. Enough of these "four posts in a row by the same person" please.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Here's a simplistic illustration: if we have 99 people making $1,000 and 1 person making $99,000, based on what your post implies, they should split the personal income tax 50/50.

My post does not imply anything of the kind.   No where and at no time have I suggested that the rich and poor should be paying an equal share.   It was made in response to assertions that the middle class is bearing the largest burden (they are not) and to point out that the absolute smallest group of taxpayers are the ones paying the largest amount of taxes already.   Certainly, the more income you have, the more you should pay.   I just find it ironic and stupid to act as if the rich pay nothing, when they are actually paying more than the combined amount paid by the other 99% of the country.

Originally Posted by phan52

Like I said, nothing based on the reality of the money that is sheltered from taxation. So just stop already.

Why would I stop, I am talking real dollars collected (reality).  You are talking about dollars that are not (hypothetical).  I am talking about the amount of money ACTUALLY COLLECTED.  You are talking about money you believe should have been collected.   The assertion was the somehow the middle class is carrying the tax load.  That simply is not true.  The rich are already bearing the largest load.    Furthermore, while I am not arguing over whether the rich should be paying more taxes, if they are taxed more, the chasm between their share of the load and the middle class will grow even more.

Another thing I find real interesting is that people talk as if there was no national debt when Clinton left office and Bush created all of it.   That is incorrect.  Under Clinton, the debt grew by $1.1 trillion and stood at $5.66 trillion when he left office.  While there is no doubt the national debt doubled under Bush, it took the full 8 years to add $5.1 trillion.  Under Obama, it has increased an additional $4.4 trillion in just 3.5 years.   So Bush gets blamed for taking 8 years to double the debt but Obama doesn't get held accountable for nearly the same amount of increase in less than half the time.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

My post does not imply anything of the kind.   No where and at no time have I suggested that the rich and poor should be paying an equal share.   It was made in response to assertions that the middle class is bearing the largest burden (they are not) and to point out that the absolute smallest group of taxpayers are the ones paying the largest amount of taxes already.   Certainly, the more income you have, the more you should pay.   I just find it ironic and stupid to act as if the rich pay nothing, when they are actually paying more than the combined amount paid by the other 99% of the country.

Why would I stop, I am talking real dollars collected (reality).  You are talking about dollars that are not (hypothetical).  I am talking about the amount of money ACTUALLY COLLECTED.  You are talking about money you believe should have been collected.   The assertion was the somehow the middle class is carrying the tax load.  That simply is not true.  The rich are already bearing the largest load.    Furthermore, while I am not arguing over whether the rich should be paying more taxes, if they are taxed more, the chasm between their share of the load and the middle class will grow even more.

Another thing I find real interesting is that people talk as if there was no national debt when Clinton left office and Bush created all of it.   That is incorrect.  Under Clinton, the debt grew by $1.1 trillion and stood at $5.66 trillion when he left office.  While there is no doubt the national debt doubled under Bush, it took the full 8 years to add $5.1 trillion.  Under Obama, it has increased an additional $4.4 trillion in just 3.5 years.   So Bush gets blamed for taking 8 years to double the debt but Obama doesn't get held accountable for nearly the same amount of increase in less than half the time.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

We know a few things about taxes, tax cuts and budgets.  Once taxes are raised (sales taxes, for instance) they are RARELY lowered back to previous rates, even with so-called "temporary" sales tax increases that we often see on state and municipal ballots.  Tax cuts are similar.  If the economy is doing well, and revenue is up, Republicans like to cut taxes.  Sometimes, even when the economy isn't doing great and revenue is down, Republicans like to cut taxes in order to "stimulate the economy".  The problem is, once cuts are in place (however "temporary" they were promised to be) it is extremely difficult to "let them expire" because the Republicans like to then call them "tax hikes".

Budgets are also similar.  Once we are paying a certain amount for something, RARELY do we see decreases in those amounts.  The government is no different than a home budget in this case.  Once you get used to a certain "standard of living", it's pretty difficult to just cut back and stop spending like you used to.  With the government, spending cuts usually mean firing employees.  Though this is sometimes necessary, it's still not an easy thing to do.

Obama is certainly just as responsible as Bush in operating under spending resolutions that were hundreds of millions more than revenue.  Obama could have solved this by simply ending both wars immediately upon taking office and calling the troops home.  Instead, he chose to listen to the Pentagon and schedule a gradual withdrawal of troops.  I honestly can't fault him for that.  Can you?  He did what the Pentagon asked him to do.  If you look at the spending since he took office, the vast majority has gone towards the DoD.  He wouldn't have had any of those expenses had we not had two wars going on when he took office.  Understand that I am NOT passing judgement on the wars, I am simply explaining that it's a little difficult for me to understand how someone can put all the blame on Obama for the DoD spending when, in fact, the only other alternative was to bring our troops home at a time when the Pentagon and prominent Republicans like McCain were asking for a troop surge.

It's convenient to just look at the numbers without using your head and thinking about exactly WHY those dollars were spent, but then again when your only goal is to do everything possible to make a Commander in Chief look bad so you can get "your guy" in the office, that doesn't surprise me.

[jgreen85]

My post does not imply anything of the kind.   No where and at no time have I suggested that the rich and poor should be paying an equal share.   It was made in response to assertions that the middle class is bearing the largest burden (they are not) and to point out that the absolute smallest group of taxpayers are the ones paying the largest amount of taxes already.   Certainly, the more income you have, the more you should pay.   I just find it ironic and stupid to act as if the rich pay nothing, when they are actually paying more than the combined amount paid by the other 99% of the country. Furthermore, while I am not arguing over whether the rich should be paying more taxes, if they are taxed more, the chasm between their share of the load and the middle class will grow even more.

So in other words, you ignore the fact that the tax burden is roughly the exact same. In my illustration both groups paid taxes at 20%. Their share of the load is equivalent to their share of income. You continue to assert that their is a chasm between their share of the load and the middle class while math shows that they pay the same tax rate when one includes state and payroll taxes.

[x129]

Hey my health care premiums just dropped 43 dollars a month. Obamacare is obviously working . The bad news is in 6 months I will move into a new age bracket

You are mixing relative and absolutes.  If you put in percentages clintons 25% increase, obamas 35% (granted over 3 years) and Bush's 95% growth paints a different picture. Those numbers depend a bit on how you calculate them (republicans don't want credit for Bush's 2009 performance and democrats want credit for 2001).    You really also need to inflation adjust the numbers but I am too lazy for that.  Short term out debt story is all about getting employment back to 6%. That cuts something like 600 billion (compare 2008 to 2009) off the debt from more revenue and lower unemployment/medicaid benefits.  Long term it is all about controlling defense spending and SS and medicare and working to max revenue match expenses. No more adding 80 billion a year programs while at the same time cutting taxes. If we want those programs we need to pay for them. If we don't want to pay for them, we shouldn't have them.

The 1% also doesn't pay more than the 99%. They pay about 35% of the taxes while having about 25% of the income. The real kicker that there is still huge income inequality at the top. The top .1% make about the same as the next .9%. Personally I don't think many people care if the top rate is 35% or 39%. People would be happy with either. They are upset at the 15% capital gain rate that is almost half of what they think they pay.  Bump that back up to 28% (feel free to leave lower 5 or 110% brackets for people with 100k or less of capital gains) and most of the complaints about the rich not paying thier fair share would go away.

Quote:

My post does not imply anything of the kind.   No where and at no time have I suggested that the rich and poor should be paying an equal share.   It was made in response to assertions that the middle class is bearing the largest burden (they are not) and to point out that the absolute smallest group of taxpayers are the ones paying the largest amount of taxes already.   Certainly, the more income you have, the more you should pay.   I just find it ironic and stupid to act as if the rich pay nothing, when they are actually paying more than the combined amount paid by the other 99% of the country.

Why would I stop, I am talking real dollars collected (reality).  You are talking about dollars that are not (hypothetical).  I am talking about the amount of money ACTUALLY COLLECTED.  You are talking about money you believe should have been collected.   The assertion was the somehow the middle class is carrying the tax load.  That simply is not true.  The rich are already bearing the largest load.    Furthermore, while I am not arguing over whether the rich should be paying more taxes, if they are taxed more, the chasm between their share of the load and the middle class will grow even more.

Another thing I find real interesting is that people talk as if there was no national debt when Clinton left office and Bush created all of it.   That is incorrect.  Under Clinton, the debt grew by $1.1 trillion and stood at $5.66 trillion when he left office.  While there is no doubt the national debt doubled under Bush, it took the full 8 years to add $5.1 trillion.  Under Obama, it has increased an additional $4.4 trillion in just 3.5 years.   So Bush gets blamed for taking 8 years to double the debt but Obama doesn't get held accountable for nearly the same amount of increase in less than half the time.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

[hanalei]

Hey my health care premiums just dropped 43 dollars a month. Obamacare is obviously working . The bad news is in 6 months I will move into a new age bracket

You are mixing relative and absolutes.  If you put in percentages clintons 25% increase, obamas 35% (granted over 3 years) and Bush's 95% growth paints a different picture. Those numbers depend a bit on how you calculate them (republicans don't want credit for Bush's 2009 performance and democrats want credit for 2001).    You really also need to inflation adjust the numbers but I am too lazy for that.  Short term out debt story is all about getting employment back to 6%. That cuts something like 600 billion (compare 2008 to 2009) off the debt from more revenue and lower unemployment/medicaid benefits.  Long term it is all about controlling defense spending and SS and medicare and working to max revenue match expenses. No more adding 80 billion a year programs while at the same time cutting taxes. If we want those programs we need to pay for them. If we don't want to pay for them, we shouldn't have them.

The 1% also doesn't pay more than the 99%. They pay about 35% of the taxes while having about 25% of the income. The real kicker that there is still huge income inequality at the top. The top .1% make about the same as the next .9%. Personally I don't think many people care if the top rate is 35% or 39%. People would be happy with either. They are upset at the 15% capital gain rate that is almost half of what they think they pay.  Bump that back up to 28% (feel free to leave lower 5 or 110% brackets for people with 100k or less of capital gains) and most of the complaints about the rich not paying thier fair share would go away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamroper60

My post does not imply anything of the kind.   No where and at no time have I suggested that the rich and poor should be paying an equal share.   It was made in response to assertions that the middle class is bearing the largest burden (they are not) and to point out that the absolute smallest group of taxpayers are the ones paying the largest amount of taxes already.   Certainly, the more income you have, the more you should pay.   I just find it ironic and stupid to act as if the rich pay nothing, when they are actually paying more than the combined amount paid by the other 99% of the country.

Why would I stop, I am talking real dollars collected (reality).  You are talking about dollars that are not (hypothetical).  I am talking about the amount of money ACTUALLY COLLECTED.  You are talking about money you believe should have been collected.   The assertion was the somehow the middle class is carrying the tax load.  That simply is not true.  The rich are already bearing the largest load.    Furthermore, while I am not arguing over whether the rich should be paying more taxes, if they are taxed more, the chasm between their share of the load and the middle class will grow even more.

Another thing I find real interesting is that people talk as if there was no national debt when Clinton left office and Bush created all of it.   That is incorrect.  Under Clinton, the debt grew by $1.1 trillion and stood at $5.66 trillion when he left office.  While there is no doubt the national debt doubled under Bush, it took the full 8 years to add $5.1 trillion.  Under Obama, it has increased an additional $4.4 trillion in just 3.5 years.   So Bush gets blamed for taking 8 years to double the debt but Obama doesn't get held accountable for nearly the same amount of increase in less than half the time.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

I think the focus was how the money was spent. Bush like his dad spent it on international offensives, I.e. Persian Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.... Obama spent it on keeping our economy afloat because of greedy traders, and keeping American Auto Industry alive..I prefer the later.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by x129

Hey my health care premiums just dropped 43 dollars a month. Obamacare is obviously working. The bad news is in 6 months I will move into a new age bracket

You are mixing relative and absolutes.  If you put in percentages clintons 25% increase, obamas 35% (granted over 3 years) and Bush's 95% growth paints a different picture. Those numbers depend a bit on how you calculate them (republicans don't want credit for Bush's 2009 performance and democrats want credit for 2001).    You really also need to inflation adjust the numbers but I am too lazy for that.  Short term out debt story is all about getting employment back to 6%. That cuts something like 600 billion (compare 2008 to 2009) off the debt from more revenue and lower unemployment/medicaid benefits.  Long term it is all about controlling defense spending and SS and medicare and working to max revenue match expenses. No more adding 80 billion a year programs while at the same time cutting taxes. If we want those programs we need to pay for them. If we don't want to pay for them, we shouldn't have them.

The 1% also doesn't pay more than the 99%. They pay about 35% of the taxes while having about 25% of the income. The real kicker that there is still huge income inequality at the top. The top .1% make about the same as the next .9%. Personally I don't think many people care if the top rate is 35% or 39%. People would be happy with either. They are upset at the 15% capital gain rate that is almost half of what they think they pay.  Bump that back up to 28% (feel free to leave lower 5 or 110% brackets for people with 100k or less of capital gains) and most of the complaints about the rich not paying thier fair share would go away.

What gets me is that nobody ever gives the wealthy any consideration for the fact that they or their ancestors earned the right to be wealthy.   Most of what I see coming from the lower income group is envy, not logic.  The rich live in fancy homes, drive a fleet of nice cars, take exotic vacations at high class hotels.  The non-rich are able to do none of those things because they or their predecessors failed to get rich for any number of reasons, not all of which may even be their fault.  I'm sorry but life just isn't always fair, and equal opportunity doesn't equate to equal success.  So instead of working to improve their condition, they would rather just skim some away from those who have already earned it. (I'm only taking about the whiners and complainers, not about those laudable individuals who work their butts off and just manage to keep ahead of the bill collector.  Those people are trying - maybe not completely succeeding, but trying - and they aren't usually the ones who complain the loudest.

And no, I'm not in that upper class group.  My wife and at our best earnings rate never made it close to that $250,000 middle class group.  What we did is go in with a plan (nothing bought on credit but house and cars and even the cars were only financed for a minimum time and paid off early, while being driven for 10 years or more), and we stuck to that plan.  We used home equity refinancing for remodeling, and when we sold the house in a down market, it still went for nearly 2.5 times what we paid 19 years earlier.  We invested all we could in 401k and IRA plans.  For us, our plan did not include having children.  That made it less difficult for us to anticipate our expenses and plan our investments and retirement.  We see yachts cruise past our house for which we couldn't even afford the fuel costs.  We ooh and aah, wonder what it's like to have that kind of money, but in the end we shrug our shoulders and take another sip of rum punch.

We made choices that most don't make.  You may choose differently, and that's fine as long as you accept the consequences of your choices.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What gets me is that nobody ever gives the wealthy any consideration for the fact that they or their ancestors earned the right to be wealthy.   Most of what I see coming from the lower income group is envy, not logic.  The rich live in fancy homes, drive a fleet of nice cars, take exotic vacations at high class hotels.  The non-rich are able to do none of those things because they or their predecessors failed to get rich for any number of reasons, not all of which may even be their fault.  I'm sorry but life just isn't always fair, and equal opportunity doesn't equate to equal success.  So instead of working to improve their condition, they would rather just skim some away from those who have already earned it. (I'm only taking about the whiners and complainers, not about those laudable individuals who work their butts off and just manage to keep ahead of the bill collector.  Those people are trying - maybe not completely succeeding, but trying - and they aren't usually the ones who complain the loudest.

And no, I'm not in that upper class group.  My wife and at our best earnings rate never made it close to that $250,000 middle class group.  What we did is go in with a plan (nothing bought on credit but house and cars and even the cars were only financed for a minimum time and paid off early, while being driven for 10 years or more), and we stuck to that plan.  We used home equity refinancing for remodeling, and when we sold the house in a down market, it still went for nearly 2.5 times what we paid 19 years earlier.  We invested all we could in 401k and IRA plans.  For us, our plan did not include having children.  That made it less difficult for us to anticipate our expenses and plan our investments and retirement.  We see yachts cruise past our house for which we couldn't even afford the fuel costs.  We ooh and aah, wonder what it's like to have that kind of money, but in the end we shrug our shoulders and take another sip of rum punch.

We made choices that most don't make.  You may choose differently, and that's fine as long as you accept the consequences of your choices.

The vast majority of the Americans expect nothing more than a fair shake.  As our government representatives become increasingly subservient to special interest groups and powerful corporations working class Americans see the deck being stacked more and more against them.

[David in FL]

You may choose differently, and that's fine as long as you accept the consequences of your choices.

Now that's just crazy talk..... ;-)

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What gets me is that nobody ever gives the wealthy any consideration for the fact that they or their ancestors earned the right to be wealthy.   Most of what I see coming from the lower income group is envy, not logic.  The rich live in fancy homes, drive a fleet of nice cars, take exotic vacations at high class hotels.  The non-rich are able to do none of those things because they or their predecessors failed to get rich for any number of reasons, not all of which may even be their fault.  I'm sorry but life just isn't always fair, and equal opportunity doesn't equate to equal success.  So instead of working to improve their condition, they would rather just skim some away from those who have already earned it. (I'm only taking about the whiners and complainers, not about those laudable individuals who work their butts off and just manage to keep ahead of the bill collector.  Those people are trying - maybe not completely succeeding, but trying - and they aren't usually the ones who complain the loudest.

And no, I'm not in that upper class group.  My wife and at our best earnings rate never made it close to that $250,000 middle class group.  What we did is go in with a plan (nothing bought on credit but house and cars and even the cars were only financed for a minimum time and paid off early, while being driven for 10 years or more), and we stuck to that plan.  We used home equity refinancing for remodeling, and when we sold the house in a down market, it still went for nearly 2.5 times what we paid 19 years earlier.  We invested all we could in 401k and IRA plans.  For us, our plan did not include having children.  That made it less difficult for us to anticipate our expenses and plan our investments and retirement.  We see yachts cruise past our house for which we couldn't even afford the fuel costs.  We ooh and aah, wonder what it's like to have that kind of money, but in the end we shrug our shoulders and take another sip of rum punch.

We made choices that most don't make.  You may choose differently, and that's fine as long as you accept the consequences of your choices.

Our perspectives are somewhat different. You look up to the yachts and we would just like to afford to live. (not to mention the cost of a round of golf)

Looking at jobs and family income from $50 to $100k Income. I believe,….The debt to net worth rose Considerably (in this class comparable to other classes) during the recession. While their income levels (or earnings potential) was also severely cut. Most if not all of their investments, including their main investment (their homes) and cashing in 401k’s to live, while Corporations used the recession to replace these 40K to 100K jobs with 25k-37k replacement workers forever changing their poverty level. THESE JOBS will never rise back up to pre-recession levels. Our lives have been changed FOREVER. This is not a complaint, we recessed, we are living in it and we don’t expect increasing the upper level tax codes will change this at all. I personally feel any laws that allowing upper class less tax percentages is OFFENSIVE and wrong. I don't know percentage of America is in this tax braket but look around you.

Real world is….. it’s sad, but most people in this class:

1) Do not know what Taxation party differences are except maybe vague descriptions. (Personally I knew some but received very valuable information on this thread, my personal thanks to all Inputs.)

2) Does not really care if continued recovery assist programs are funded with increased Federal Debt or subsidized by tax increase of top !%, As long as they are continued.

2A) If you don’t think it’s necessary to fund these programs, well you seen what happened to everyone’s income in the first dip. If there is no more Top Ramien to eat, than you will be creating more defeatism, which will not be good I believe assuredly.

I look at it like this. We were hit with an enormous earthquake which this class was at the epicenter. It destroyed our homes, we are living in it’s shatters trying to maintain a life. The classes above us were in another city and had damage but not to our extent. Don’t send us another one while we are trying to adjust.

I can not personally guarantee this would be the case.

These are my opinions only based on my learned experiences and is not based on any factual data.

[Mr. Desmond]

Romney needs to golf!

I'm not commenting on the subject, but the thin skin.

As a candidate portrayed here, he's uptight, defensive and impatient in this video. He definitely needs to relax.

A smooth swing, Mr. Romney. Relax. Be the ball....

[newtogolf]

I had to jump back in here because you're a one hit wonder.  I know this is the tact of the Obama supporter but you need a new song.  Shape shifter is old and tired.

Romney is trying to appeal to the vast majority of voters so he's softening some positions he's held in the past(you call it shape shifting) .  Do we really want to go through all the campaign promises and positions Obama took when he was in Chicago and first ran for President 4 years ago versus today?  Unlike Obama when he ran, Romney has a political history and track record, look at what he did or didn't do in Mass to get an idea of who he is and what he stands for.

You're too bright a guy to not know that in order to win the nomination and keep the hard right GOP happy Romney needed to take on some of their positions.  He's trying to make everyone happy to unite the GOP just as Obama has with the dems.  Once / If Romney is elected I expect to see a guy similar to the one that ran Mass.   Make your decision tomorrow based on that, not this campaign crap.

Also let's not pretend Obama has kept his word and has never changed a position he proclaimed during his 1st campaign.  If you need an example, take a look at his record on transparency (not his personal but political).  He's done more back room deals and classified more documents than GW did.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Umm, David, we are all flawed.

We're human. It comes with the territory.

With Obama, at least we get competent leadership - no big scandals, no big errors. And he's accomplished a lot - we haven't had the BIG, FAST recovery. Did anyone think we would? Economists state this type of recession doesn't offer a fast recovery (But it could have been quicker). Obama is very careful, probably too careful. One hopes he learns from errors, is less political in a second term, and get things done with the GOP. In other words, he becomes a leader who is positive in mind and spirit in terms of working with the other side.

I really don't know what we'd get with Romney. He has not done a good job making a case for himself. He is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma.  He talks in platitudes. He has no details. He comes across as unrealistic, shallow, unknowledgeable, and naive. Private Business is not the answer to every question. I wish it was. And bringing in less revenue and increasing defense spending does not pay down the debt. Decreasing the top tax rates does not lead to an economic boom. Look at history.

Romney has changed his positions so many times, I don't think he knows who he is. I wish he had made a better, more realistic case for himself.  I see a guy who has no inkling of who he is other than a one dimensional dealer maker for a company that cannibalizes businesses and people. It is too bad. The guy has talent -- in the private sector.

Hey, no one wants a repeat of the last four years. We want to go forward. But neither do we want a repeat of the 8 years previous to Obama. Two wars and a doubling of the national debt.

We go forward ... as will the President we elect. Despite the screaming, we've had 32 months of jobs growth, the housing market is picking up, the stock market is at pre-2008 levels, banks are lending again, and we are in recovery. We are doing better than other Western Nations. Ask yourself why. They went austerity, we went stimulus. And if we are smart, we will recover what we spent because we are headed on a stronger path to recovery.

Will we be wise and reduce costs, raise revenue, reform entitlements and reduce our debt?

That is the challenge.

The next four years will be different no matter who is President - that much is guaranteed.

[boogielicious]

Well as someone from Massachusetts, that is what I am worried about.  Romney was a lousy governor.  We knew 5 minutes after he won that he only ran so he could run for President.  All is claims like balancing the budget are misleading.  Every Governor in MA has to balance to budget because it is the law here.  His other claims are equally as dubious.  He has very little support here in his home state.  That should really tell you something.  His predecessors, both Republican and Democrat did a much better job and were much better at reaching across the aisle.

Romney is a used car salesman.  I'm not even sure why he wants to be President.

[Mr. Desmond]

To newtogolf, we might all want Mitt to play golf with Obama if he had changed his positions early. But the fact is, he's been singing this right wing song since his Governor days when he realized he would be running for President. If he had tacked back early in the summer, I could vote for moderate Mitt if I thought he had a backbone, was not a great closer of a sale, and could stand up to his right wing. But he tacked back in early October - too late.

You don't ask voters to forget what you've said for 6 years in the last month of the race. That's why the press calls him a shape-shifter, etch-a-sketch, you name it.

We don't know.

Mitt talks in platitudes, not details - the mark of an unprepared salesman.

Hey, I wish he had more... but he does not. It's not as if I'm a flaming liberal - I've got an MBA, was a CPA, have two law degrees and practiced tax law for 20 years - I'm on the side of business, gently regulated and responsibly behaved. But I also see trends - putting more in the hands of fewer does not help the economy. I want reform. I want a new, simpler tax code with low rates and quick deprecation. I want people off welfare. I want people employed. I want a plan to reduce the deficit over 10 years - even partially (the failed Grand Bargain). I don't want more and more defense spending in leaps and bounds. I don't want to go to the right of Bush. Been there, done that.

Neither of these guys will deliver what I want. So I will stay with a guy who is at least going forward, not backwards, and wait for the next guy or gal.

[Mr. Desmond]

Doesn't politics, like golf, make you want to think about doing this at times?

[David in FL]

Doesn't politics, like golf, make you want to think about doing this at times?

Post of the day......that's OUTSTANDING! :-D