Jack Nicklaus Endorses Romney, Mitt calls Jack “Greatest athlete of the 20th century.”

[jamo]

Do you believe that some  in public housing for 20 years has an EBT card, food stamps, free schooling for the kids throw in  free breakfast lunch and dinner at school is trying very hard to get off the dole?  Do they stop having children we can not afford fathers that leave in the morning and never come back.  This country is going down fast and entitlements are the driving force!

And with that, welcome to The Grill Room everybody!

[David in FL]

ALRIGHT..... ......let's get ready to RUMBLE!!! :-D

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by jamo

And with that, welcome to The Grill Room everybody!

Someone posted this elsewhere? I wasn't aware. Jack being the greatest athlete of the century is very stupid and hardly a valid claim so I thought we'd just move past that and get to the bashing.

[David in FL]

That sound wonderful, David, but it's actually more simple than that. Rich people vote Republican cuz they don't want to pay more in taxes

Ahhhh....... So conversely, poor people tend to vote Democrat because they want to pay more in taxes?

[hanalei]

Thought politics was banned on the golf course. Country is fine. Go build a bomb shelter if your worried, or move to Canada. And if I remember correctly 9-11 was retaliation for desert storm, (Daddy Bush), and retaliation for 9-11 was baby Bush, (Afghanistan). And the last economic debacle was due to unregulated derivative trading by to big to fail banks. Hate when people use welfare as some reason our country is in debt. Trust me when I say a couple stealth fighters could pay welfare for years, and don't forget the billion dollar aircraft carriers we pump out every couple of years. People need to look where federal money is truely being spent before whining about where there tax dollars go.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by hanalei

Thought politics was banned on the golf course. Country is fine. Go build a bomb shelter if your worried, or move to Canada. And if I remember correctly 9-11 was retaliation for desert storm, (Daddy Bush), and retaliation for 9-11 was baby Bush, (Afghanistan). And the last economic debacle was due to unregulated derivative trading by to big to fail banks. Hate when people use welfare as some reason our country is in debt. Trust me when I say a couple stealth fighters could pay welfare for years, and don't forget the billion dollar aircraft carriers we pump out every couple of years. People need to look where federal money is truely being spent before whining about where there tax dollars go.

You need to take a geography lesson instead of economics.

[David in FL]

People vote with their wallet.

On this we absolutely agree...... ....and the 800 pound gorilla in the room right now is that VERY close to 50% of eligible voters pay NO federal income tax.....none. They have learned that by voting for the socialist.....sorry, Democrat candidate, they have the best chance of not having to pay anything for the benefits they derive from living in this country. That they can be secure in knowing that someone in the voting minority will be required to subsidize their portion, at the point of a gun if necessary. Once we reach that 50% tipping point, all is lost. :-(

[hanalei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hanalei

Thought politics was banned on the golf course. Country is fine. Go build a bomb shelter if your worried, or move to Canada. And if I remember correctly 9-11 was retaliation for desert storm, (Daddy Bush), and retaliation for 9-11 was baby Bush, (Afghanistan) . And the last economic debacle was due to unregulated derivative trading by to big to fail banks. Hate when people use welfare as some reason our country is in debt. Trust me when I say a couple stealth fighters could pay welfare for years, and don't forget the billion dollar aircraft carriers we pump out every couple of years. People need to look where federal money is truely being spent before whining about where there tax dollars go.

You need to take a geography lesson instead of economics.

Really, thought being there for all those conflicts gave me a lesson in geography.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by hanalei

Really, thought being there for all those conflicts gave me a lesson in geography.

Iraq≠Afghanistan. It might be mostly sand, but there's a difference. Also Saddam≠Al Qaeda. To say 9/11 has anything to do with Desert Storm is incorrect. Saddam had a hell of a lot better military than Al Qaeda, with soviet tanks, SCUDs, and soviet jets. He wouldn't need to use car bombs and hijack planes if he wanted to kill Americans.

Baby Bush went back to Iraq because of the invented "WMD" thing, and basically hoped no one would ask why because of 9/11 and also assume Afghanistan and Iraq were the same country. And he was right for a while. Maybe he wanted to get Saddam for good that time, I don't really know why we were really there. Afghanistan had a lot to do with Al Qaeda so you could claim the war there was retaliation for 9/11.

[kathybhylton]

This is shocking.

[hanalei]

Sorry sir you are incorrect. Do me a favor and do your research on Sept 11 attacks, Osama's motives due to our desert storm presence in Iraq and Saudi, how we ousted him and his assets, Along with our current presence in Afghanistan. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks[/URL] Sept 11 Per wiki.. "Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda, and in 2004, the group's leader, Osama bin Laden, who had initially denied involvement, claimed responsibility for the attacks. [1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia (see Desert Storm), and sanctions against Iraq as motives for the attacks. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. In May 2011, after years at large, bin Laden was located and killed."

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by David in FL

On this we absolutely agree......

....and the 800 pound gorilla in the room right now is that VERY close to 50% of eligible voters pay NO federal income tax.....none. They have learned that by voting for the socialist.....sorry, Democrat candidate, they have the best chance of not having to pay anything for the benefits they derive from living in this country. That they can be secure in knowing that someone in the voting minority will be required to subsidize their portion, at the point of a gun if necessary.

Once we reach that 50% tipping point, all is lost.

Know who makes up those that don't pay income tax? People like my 85-year-old mother, who doesn't make enough money to be taxed. People on disability. Retired military.

It's pretty simple, actually. They don't pay income tax because they don't have enough income .

See, this is the issue with the clueless...sorry, Republican candidate, and by extension the party itself. They represent rich people, but since rich people are the minority in this country, and since there's no way they can suppress the vote enough so that only rich people were eligible to vote (but give them time, they'll figure that out), they have to come up with a narrative that non-rich people can get with. Voila - 47% of the country doesn't pay income tax! Isn't that outrageous? Aren't you MAD? Get angry! Vote out the Kenyan Marxist America-Hating Acorn-elected illegitimate president & elect the guy that will squeeze the people that can ill afford it to pay...so that the privileged don't have to.

So, instead of making the filthy rich pay a little more in taxes, they try to change the narrative to this 47%-not-paying-taxes narrative. Therefore, they feel it is fairer to try to wring taxes out of my mom & her $1200 a month she has to live on than to, God forbid, make a millionaire have to leave the third Beemer in the garage.

That's fairness, Republican style.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Ahhhh.......

So conversely, poor people tend to vote Democrat because they want to pay more in taxes?

There is no conversely - in the good old days before Reagan, the Republican Party was a balance that triumphed the successful businessman, strong national defense, and was a steward of air, water, forests, and the land, and offered a sense of community. Over the last thirty years that balance has devolved to where the GOP triumphs individualism and defense, and rails against any government oversight. That is not a party for the majority of people - it is a party for the millionaires. They keep the middle class in the party with fearmongering over social issues.

So any sense of fairness is now called redistribution or socialsim - labels that strike fear into people and prevent them from thinking, and have them shrieking.

As to the 47% who do not pay income taxes, BUT DO pay real estate taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, medicare taxes, etc. - that is not new under Obama. It was a similar situation under Bush, Clinton, etc. What's new is more people needing entitlements - why? THINK - what occurred 4 years ago? The greatest recession since the Great Depression. And who was in office for the 8 years before that recession? Not to blame one side because both parties are at fault - but who was the executive? And what Party has basically sat back and done nothing but obstruct legislation during this Great Recession, and what Party elected to help with jobs in 2010 has done NOTHING about jobs? No Legislation. In fact, it is their bickering that led to the downgrading of our debt. The fact is that the GOP wants this country to fail until they are in power again. Is that the way to govern? To obstruct and do everything to make the other guy fail unless he craters to our every whim and demand? NO. Until the late 90's - the parties battled but moved slowly ahead through compromise.

That compromise is extinct. And according to polls by independent sources, it is not the Democrats who have moved to the left. It is the Republicans who have moved to the extreme right - who have grown more radical and into ideologues. Well, ideology makes for nice cocktail talk, but it doesn't get a damn thing done.

That's not to say that we don't need an overhaul of entitlements, taxes, and national defense spending -- we DO. But it must take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect, empathy, and "we're in this together."

As to this election, both men are flawed - but Romney on his feet can't say a damn thing that is intelligent. He may be a great businessman, but great CEOs tend to suck at government. The only time we saw Romney flow with words was on the 47% video - you saw his complete misunderstanding and contempt of the American people - if you're not eligible to pay income taxes, you're a freakin' taker. And this is a guy who harvested profits, not jobs. And who helped outsource jobs so these Americans he calls "takers" could become "losers." And the fact is this guy Romney has flipped and flopped so many times that even he doesn't know who he is as a man. How can you vote for someone who doesn't even know who he is?

[x129]

Your view is way too simplistic. For example why hasn't staff been laided off already with the current tax rate? Because they bring in more money than the cost.  Changing the tax rate doesn't change that. Sure the owner would rather make 65k rather than 60k off an employee but 60k is still a lot better than 0k. And if your Joe the plumber and you laided off your staff because of the tax increase, some other plumber in town will expand to do the work you don't want to.  Why haven't benefits and salaries been cut? Because you would lose your top 10% of employees who could find work elsewhere.   Will there be some effect? Sure but it isn't one to one. And that money that is paid to the government doesn't disappear. It is spend on something else and that spending also effects the economy. When that spending replaces borrowing, it is a short term loss to the economy. Short term it is better to borrow money (the republican policy for the past 30 years) but long term it is better to have taxes match expenses as you get the private spending and government ones. Long terms it is a disaster. Do the math on what will happen when interest rates go up to 5 or 6%. The only realistic solution will be to really inflate our currency which will result in a lot of things getting more expensive.

Right now we are in a race where we need government spending and low taxes to get our economy back so that we have enough money to pay our debts but we need that to happen before interest rates rise. Deciding when to raise taxes and cut government is hard. Do it too soon and you end up like Europe. Do it too late and your facing huge inflations. Throw in that we have ignored SS and medicare for 20 years (i.e something like a 1% increase in them during the 90s and 00s would have made the programs solvant) means that there will be a lot of tough choices down the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Republicans believe in smaller government and less entitlements.  As a result of smaller government and less entitlements the government needs less money to run and thus the tax burden for everyone can be lowered.

The misnomer democrats have about taxing business owners is if you make them pay more taxes, they will, and it will not affect the economy.  A business owner who's forced to pay more taxes will not take the financial hit, they will raise their prices, layoff staff, eliminate benefits, freeze salaries, etc which ultimately hurts the economy more than any benefit the additional tax income provided.

[Mr. Desmond]

Actually, guys, the "Obama Plan" as stated early in his presidency when we knew the extent of the problems, and when NO ONE in private business was spending or extending credit, was that the government was the only one that could sustain the economy during this time - so we had our own "Surge" with the Stimulus - no, it was not as extensive or as organized as we would have liked - it contained about 35% of tax benefits, and probably was not large enough to sustain the economy - it fizzled out early this year. BUT the second part of the plan was for Private Business and Banks to Stimulate the Economy after the stimulus lost momentum, and for the government to reduce spending - less entitlements, and hopefully, more layoffs - so that people could seek employment in the burgeoning private sector - that government revenue would increase with more employment, and we'd see a reduction in spending with less entitlements, i.e., resulting in a reduction of the deficit until, HOPEFULLY, a better solution - like rEfOrM could take place in taxes and entitlements.

Okay, now for some reason, the second part of the plan has not activated itself -- there is a trillion and more in cash laying around in the bags of big business but no employment -- WHY? Because both parties can't give certainty and motivation to business. Business wants to know the rules, and that the rules will be around for several years - they want to plan, they want motivation to employ US employees - and our government - both Dems and Pubs - are not giving that certainty to them. And once big business is investing in people, property, and equipment, then small business will start generating its profits, and employment will expand. But it's not happening yet... because the big boys in Washington will not compromise and cooperate.

[zipazoid]

Obama inherited a mess, and the only true criticism is he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough. Why? Well, it's hard when you have a party that will be against anything he attempts to do. After all, that's what McConnell said was their main priority - denying him a second term as president.

But I'm hopeful this will change once Obama is reelected. I'm sure their main goal will be denying him a third term.

[newtogolf]

Staff is being laid off, the press isn't reporting it, but unemployment is on the rise.  My company is actually growing, but that is because larger company's in our industry are failing and cutting their staff.

The owner or CEO of a business will continue to make $65K per employee, it's just how he/she gets there, whether it be in cuts in staff, benefits, price increases or combination but expecially in public companies, profits can't take a hit without it impacting stock prices.   The top 10% of employees in a company get special deals, the rest of staff is expendable and easlily replaced with such a high number of qualified people looking for jobs currently.  Health insurance costs thanks to Obama have skyrocketed since he took office and are projected to go up so companies that offer health benefits have started to cap their costs or eliminate them completely.

It's best to have a government that is fiscally responsible and doesn't expand entitlements by raising taxes.  The federal government has become the 2nd tier of welfare, take a look at how much money is spent just in administration costs of welfare, social security, and medicare / medicaid.  No business would run as ineffeciently as this and still be in business but our current leader believes you just print more money when you need it, so why be fiscally responsible.

Originally Posted by x129

Your view is way too simplistic. For example why hasn't staff been laided off already with the current tax rate? Because they bring in more money than the cost.  Changing the tax rate doesn't change that. Sure the owner would rather make 65k rather than 60k off an employee but 60k is still a lot better than 0k. And if your Joe the plumber and you laided off your staff because of the tax increase, some other plumber in town will expand to do the work you don't want to.  Why haven't benefits and salaries been cut? Because you would lose your top 10% of employees who could find work elsewhere.   Will there be some effect? Sure but it isn't one to one. And that money that is paid to the government doesn't disappear. It is spend on something else and that spending also effects the economy. When that spending replaces borrowing, it is a short term loss to the economy. Short term it is better to borrow money (the republican policy for the past 30 years) but long term it is better to have taxes match expenses as you get the private spending and government ones. Long terms it is a disaster. Do the math on what will happen when interest rates go up to 5 or 6%. The only realistic solution will be to really inflate our currency which will result in a lot of things getting more expensive.

Right now we are in a race where we need government spending and low taxes to get our economy back so that we have enough money to pay our debts but we need that to happen before interest rates rise. Deciding when to raise taxes and cut government is hard. Do it too soon and you end up like Europe. Do it too late and your facing huge inflations. Throw in that we have ignored SS and medicare for 20 years (i.e something like a 1% increase in them during the 90s and 00s would have made the programs solvant) means that there will be a lot of tough choices down the road.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Health insurance costs thanks to Obama have skyrocketed since he took office and are projected to go up so companies that offer health benefits have started to cap their costs or eliminate them completely.

Uh, no.

Health Costs skyrocketed under Bush, too, and they skyrocket every year. When Clinton was in office, I had a nice, low deductible, and paid $200/month. With Bush, it was $450/month and a high deductible. WIth Obama, it is now $515/month with that deductible. Just for health care.

Now ObamaCare may be expensive, RomneyCare was expensive - but the CBO says it will save money- I'm hoping it's a wash. BUT the idea is good. I can't rely on Rick Perry to offer me decent health care - are you kidding me?

With Republicans, we'd still have socialism - go down to your local public hospital, and wait for a day for care and pay nothing - let the taxpayers pay - that is the norm until ObamaCare takes over - which is a private based system in which all of those who can afford to pay, will pay, and those who cannot afford it, will receive assistance - and no one will be turned down through private insurance exchanges. This is a capitalistic system that minimizes the "takers." Of course, no law is perfect. ObamaCare needs tweaking, just like any law. But at least we won't have people relying on an unreliable state government or being turned down because a private insurance company says you're a risk.