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

[David in FL]

Nice resume.  I'm curious how you believe re-electing Obama would be in your and more importantly your clients best interest?  I agree Romney was a poor choice by the GOP, but I see him as the lesser of two evils.

Good question. I fired my personal financial guy this past year when I found out he was an Obama supporter. Nothing against him (or Democrats in general), but someone who supports Mr Obama's redistributionist hopes and aspirations is NOT the right person to be advising anyone about their own wealth management.

[David in FL]

Your desperation knows no bounds and your arguments are devoid of logic. [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanitarian]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanitarian[/URL] Neither yourself or Mitt the Mutt seem to give a damn for 49%, we are told, of your fellow countrymen so one can only conclude that you would give even less for anyone else. Humanitarian, therefore, you 'aint.  Capiche?

Ah yes, the Italian model for economic prosperity. Another EU nation whose debt exceeds GDP. Now I understand. By the way, who's "telling you" that Republicans don't give a damn about 49% of our countrymen?

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You should just come to California then.  Since it's all about electoral votes still, and most states are winner take all and California is always going to vote blue, nobody bothers out here.  I heard somewhere that both candidates are spending an enormous percentage (don't remember the number, could've been 50%, could've been 90%) of their campaign funding in just the 3 (or 4) swing states out there.

Lucky for you, you are in one of them.

That's actually false. If you look at the spending, Ohio is the most targeted state in the entire country for these damn political commercials and campaigning. Ohio has the highest number of these commercials being played.

Unfortunately and unlucky for me.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Nice resume.  I'm curious how you believe re-electing Obama would be in your and more importantly your clients best interest?  I agree Romney was a poor choice by the GOP, but I see him as the lesser of two evils.

Well, whomever I vote for, it won't be about my clients' best interests. It is about where I'd like the country headed. I think a President can at least set a tone.

Agree - it's a choice between two men.

The redistribution issue is a non-issue.

• We've been re-distributing wealth since at least, WWII with the income and estate tax - Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, et al - at much higher rates of tax. Reagan's rates were similar but his administration began increasing the payroll tax. Obama has attempted to reduce, albeit temporarily, the payroll tax.
• The only substantive discussion by Obama on the topic is a return to the Clinton tax rates, and he seems open to increasing the estate tax exemption and decreasing rates on estate taxes. If you remember, the estate tax rates with Reagan through Clinton was 37-55%. We used other planning techniques to decrease the estate tax.

Taxes - having said the above, I think it is time to scrap the tax code and begin anew with one for the 21st century. Something simpler with lower rates, and perhaps a consumption (sales) tax at a low rate on non-essentials. A revamping of the corporate tax code with lower rates and expensing all assets.

• And I see neither candidate showing any imagination as to taxes.
• I have seen where Romney and Bain exploit every tax loophole to their advantage. So I'm not certain if I want to see Romney's version of tax reform.
• My clients have not seen a boom with low income tax rates, which is the GOP argument. Okay - trickle down does not work. Can we finally admit what some Republicans have.
• What may work, and this is where Romney might be good, if we had any details, and we don't - is in corporate taxes. Lower those rates, put incentives in to hire US workers, and purchase US manufactured products. But actually, Obama put employment incentives in the Jobs Bill that the GOP would not discuss. Interesting. So that may be a wash. But I like Romney if lowering taxes for the upper class is your objective. But does that help the country as a whole?
• I am more in line with lowering business taxes and eliminating some corporate breaks. Okay, Romney wins there. But again, we have no details - nada.

Deficit

• Romney wants to lower income tax rates on the wealthiest and reduce entitlements while increasing defense spending. Well, that strategy typically increases the deficit because when it comes down to brass tacks, no one wants to see starving children and more homeless on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et al. Once again, trickle down typically means "piss on" the other income strata and increases the deficit. Bush's tax cuts have cost $1T in deficits. Where are the jobs? as the Dems say.
• Obama would raise the highest rates a few percentage points on a few people. He agreed to reform entitlements with the failed grand bargain of $4T in savings over 10 years. But would he reduce the deficit? Doubtful.
• Also, memories are short, but Obama did enter office with the greatest recession since the great depression - and the GOP laid out on him. At the same time, Obama was not prepared to deal with this recession. He wanted another stimulus and the GOP would not allow it and they will not pass his Jobs Bill. So while I don't have great confidence in Obama's style of leadership or his creativity - the record on him is incomplete because the GOP laid out on him. But still, I don't have this gnawing conviction with him that deficit reduction is a priority -- because maybe Jobs are a priority - once again - corporate incentives are needed.

Health Care

• Let's suffice to say that Obama abandoned his party's preference of a single payer plan and went to a free market alternative where everyone is forced to obtain insurance for the good of everyone. No law is perfect, but relying on all states to offer decent health care is a fantasy. Eventually, as prices rise, you'd have people moving to other states based on health care, et al. We need a solution to a vexing problem - fix it. Make the free market fix it with other methods of rewarding the medical profession. (See Blue Cross Massachusetts for articles on how they are rewarding doctors in new ways)
• Romney will do something - vouchers are all the rage in the GOP, so my guess is a voucher plan, even for people with preexisting conditions. Vouchers don't work for long. Costs go up. You haven't begun to solve the problem.

Foreign Policy

• Obama seems to want to bring the troops home and leave it to smaller forces and drones to control AQ.
• Romney has been saber rattling and has little or no experience.

Leadership

• Obama has gotten better without the teleprompter; is personable and in touch.
• Romney can't talk his way out of a paper bag without a script, is out of touch with normal life and people.

To tell you the truth, it's a mixed bag between the two. Romney may get rid of the estate tax. That helps, but the next Democrat will reinstate it. It's happened previously. We know about Obama. All we know about Romney is that he buys companies and tries to make them efficient. If they're not, he drains them with fees and bankrupts them. That's efficient. Does that work in government?

If Romney said - I will reform the entire government, reform the entire tax system and get something going for the 21st century, and make our budgets, including the military - more efficient and ignore the special interests that steals people of their common sense. We are going to take care of us while cooperating with other nations in leadership. And that guy had a plan - hey, I'd advise my client to go for him.

But Romney has not done that, and has done the opposite in some cases. We don't know who he is other than a businessman who exploits tax loopholes ... and that by itself does not lend itself to a recommendation for President.

Between the two? - your call.

[jamo]

Unfortunately and unlucky for me.

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic, hence the smiley. Not having to watch presidential ads is one of the nice things about living in Massachusetts, even if the electoral college makes my vote even more meaningless.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Spyder

That's actually false. If you look at the spending, Ohio is the most targeted state in the entire country for these damn political commercials and campaigning. Ohio has the highest number of these commercials being played.

Unfortunately and unlucky for me.

What's false??

You repeated exactly what I said!  You are in one of the 3 or 4 states I was referring to and I said if you wanted to avoid that you should come to California.

[x129]

Maybe he thinks it would be in his client's best interest not to have another recession?  It isn't remotely clear that another round of tax cuts and deregulation would help the economy as much as fixing our budget would.

Most people don't vote strictly on financial issues either. As Mitt pointed out, if they did the republicans would never win.

Quote:

Nice resume.  I'm curious how you believe re-electing Obama would be in your and more importantly your clients best interest?  I agree Romney was a poor choice by the GOP, but I see him as the lesser of two evils.

[Mr. Desmond]

In the event someone thought Mitt might have all the answers on the economy:

It was almost exactly four years ago that Mitt Romney watched up close as John McCain agonized over how he should respond to America’s spiraling financial crisis. What McCain ultimately chose to do, six weeks before the election, was to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to meet with President Bush and Congressional leaders. But that strategic gamble — which now takes its place in the annals of political misfires — came as a result of a somber meeting earlier that day with his economic team at a Hilton hotel in Midtown Manhattan. The attendees included several of the candidate’s big donors in the finance industry, a few political advisers and Romney.

Enlarge This Image

Winslow Townson/Associated Press

Gov. Mitt Romney in 2003, about to give a speech about bringing business to Worcester, Mass.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »
• Read All Comments (289) »

“It was an unrelentingly bleak discussion, with the financial guys talking about the world as we know it ending,” recalls Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was McCain’s senior economic adviser at the time. Another McCain senior staff member, who, like many people I spoke with, would speak only under the condition of anonymity, told me: “At the time, there wasn’t a person on the political team who understood what a credit-default swap was or toxic mortgages or subprime bundling. At one point I asked, ‘What do you mean by economic collapse?’ And one of them answered, ‘It means you won’t be able to get a 20-dollar bill out of an A.T.M.’ Right after the meeting I called my wife and said, ‘Get $30,000 in cash out of the bank today.’ It was terrifying and surreal.”

Romney had been an informal adviser, fund-raiser and campaign surrogate for McCain since dropping out of the G.O.P. race seven months earlier. Well before the meltdown of the markets that summer, the former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital C.E.O. had emphasized his vast experience in the private sector. As he told one campaign audience in Sarasota, Fla., in January 2008: “I will not need briefings on how the economy works. I know how it works. I’ve been there.”

That day in the Hilton conference room, however, Romney did not distinguish himself as McCain struggled to decide what course he should recommend in Washington. Holtz-Eakin recalls “nothing specifically” that Romney had to offer. The other McCain senior staff member is more emphatic: “The reality is he didn’t take command. He wasn’t a Marshall-type figure who conveyed an understanding of both business and politics. But the truth is, no one else had any clue what to do, either.” Then he added, “There wasn’t a single person in the room, including Romney, who had any specific policy recommendation.”

_______

There is a lot more about Romney - working with Ted Kennedy on healthcare, stem cell research controversy, generating a global warming plan for Massachusetts - he is a big environmentalist, but would weight what was right for Massachusetts against how it would look nationally. It begs the question of who is Romney - the guy who likes cutting edge solutions, or Romney, the right wing conservative?

Fully a year before unveiling his climate-change plan, Romney agreed to participate in the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI (pronounced “reggie”), a consortium of nine Northeastern states invited by Gov. George E. Pataki of New York to formulate the nation’s first comprehensive cap-and-trade, greenhouse-gas-reduction policy. In a July 21, 2003, letter to Pataki, Romney wrote that “now is the time to take action toward climate protection.” He noted that his administration “has a target of reducing greenhouse gases” and added that “I believe that our joint work to create a flexible market-based regional cap-and-trade system could serve as an effective approach to meeting those goals.” The concept appealed to Romney’s penchant for cutting-edge solutions. One of Romney’s top officials told me that if the states had been able to finalize an agreement during the first year and a half of Romney’s term, “there’s no question he would have signed. No doubt about it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/magazine/mitt-romney.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp;

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

In the event someone thought Mitt might have all the answers on the economy:

It was almost exactly four years ago that Mitt Romney watched up close as John McCain agonized over how he should respond to America’s spiraling financial crisis. What McCain ultimately chose to do, six weeks before the election, was to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to meet with President Bush and Congressional leaders. But that strategic gamble — which now takes its place in the annals of political misfires — came as a result of a somber meeting earlier that day with his economic team at a Hilton hotel in Midtown Manhattan. The attendees included several of the candidate’s big donors in the finance industry, a few political advisers and Romney.

Enlarge This Image

Winslow Townson/Associated Press

Gov. Mitt Romney in 2003, about to give a speech about bringing business to Worcester, Mass.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

Post a Comment »

Read All Comments (289) »

“It was an unrelentingly bleak discussion, with the financial guys talking about the world as we know it ending,” recalls Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was McCain’s senior economic adviser at the time. Another McCain senior staff member, who, like many people I spoke with, would speak only under the condition of anonymity, told me: “At the time, there wasn’t a person on the political team who understood what a credit-default swap was or toxic mortgages or subprime bundling. At one point I asked, ‘What do you mean by economic collapse?’ And one of them answered, ‘It means you won’t be able to get a 20-dollar bill out of an A.T.M.’ Right after the meeting I called my wife and said, ‘Get $30,000 in cash out of the bank today.’ It was terrifying and surreal.”

Romney had been an informal adviser, fund-raiser and campaign surrogate for McCain since dropping out of the G.O.P. race seven months earlier. Well before the meltdown of the markets that summer, the former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital C.E.O. had emphasized his vast experience in the private sector. As he told one campaign audience in Sarasota, Fla., in January 2008: “I will not need briefings on how the economy works. I know how it works. I’ve been there.”

That day in the Hilton conference room, however, Romney did not distinguish himself as McCain struggled to decide what course he should recommend in Washington. Holtz-Eakin recalls “nothing specifically” that Romney had to offer. The other McCain senior staff member is more emphatic: “The reality is he didn’t take command. He wasn’t a Marshall-type figure who conveyed an understanding of both business and politics. But the truth is, no one else had any clue what to do, either.” Then he added, “There wasn’t a single person in the room, including Romney, who had any specific policy recommendation.”

_______

There is a lot more about Romney - working with Ted Kennedy on healthcare, stem cell research controversy, generating a global warming plan for Massachusetts - he is a big environmentalist, but would weight what was right for Massachusetts against how it would look nationally. It begs the question of who is Romney - the guy who likes cutting edge solutions, or Romney, the right wing conservative?

Fully a year before unveiling his climate-change plan, Romney agreed to participate in the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI (pronounced “reggie”), a consortium of nine Northeastern states invited by Gov. George E. Pataki of New York to formulate the nation’s first comprehensive cap-and-trade, greenhouse-gas-reduction policy. In a July 21, 2003, letter to Pataki, Romney wrote that “now is the time to take action toward climate protection.” He noted that his administration “has a target of reducing greenhouse gases” and added that “I believe that our joint work to create a flexible market-based regional cap-and-trade system could serve as an effective approach to meeting those goals.” The concept appealed to Romney’s penchant for cutting-edge solutions. One of Romney’s top officials told me that if the states had been able to finalize an agreement during the first year and a half of Romney’s term, “there’s no question he would have signed. No doubt about it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/magazine/mitt-romney.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp;

I don't think anyone thinks he has all the answers.   His biggest advantage.....He's not President Obama.

What continues to be missed is that the President has had 4 years and in that time has accomplished virtually nothing in terms of improving the economy or creating jobs (except in the public sector) and his only real accomplishment has been to increase the deficit from $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a 50% increase all by himself.  Hey, if you're into deficit spending, you might as well go big or go home.......

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I don't think anyone thinks he has all the answers.   His biggest advantage.....He's not President Obama.

What continues to be missed is that the President has had 4 years and in that time has accomplished virtually nothing in terms of improving the economy or creating jobs (except in the public sector) and his only real accomplishment has been to increase the deficit from $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a 50% increase all by himself.  Hey, if you're into deficit spending, you might as well go big or go home.......

Exactly. This is similar to 1980. A lot of people were scared of Reagan and weren't sure he could be the answer. But the our economy and foreign affairs were a complete mess, so they took a chance and it worked. If somebody is inept, you have to fire them whether you find their ideal replacement or not.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I don't think anyone thinks he has all the answers.   His biggest advantage.....He's not President Obama.

What continues to be missed is that the President has had 4 years and in that time has accomplished virtually nothing in terms of improving the economy or creating jobs (except in the public sector) and his only real accomplishment has been to increase the deficit from $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a 50% increase all by himself.  Hey, if you're into deficit spending, you might as well go big or go home.......

Romney's biggest advantage may be that he is not Obama.

The rest of your statement looks like GOP pablum - a little truth wrapped in a bed of misleading statements. Obama has real accomplishments. You can't handle the truth - lol. As to the deficit, understandable with so many unemployed and not contributing with income taxes, winding down the Bush wars, the stimulus, and the GOP laying out on him. Remember when Obama took office, we were losing 750k jobs per month.

The real problem with Obama is that he did not govern in a post partisan manner to begin his administration, his negotiating style leaves everyone in the lurch, and he is perhaps too cautious. He has a sharp mind. But my previous sentence says a lot about the President ... and it's not good. I am not as worried about the real Romney, as him being able to stand up to the extremists controlling his Party. If he lays down to them, the country may be in worse shape than now. That's the problem - will Romney show a backbone or crater? Who knows? It's just too bad Huntsman did not win the GOP Primaries ... and he is almost as uninspiring as Romney. But at least he doesn't need a script and he has a backbone.

[x129]

Yet again your wrong.  Under Obama we have had private job creation (partly due to the fact that the private sector recession started under Bush so was half way done when Obama took over) that has been decent (not great but not horrible) and public sector job loss (didn't start until over a year in and still happening. Most losses are at the state level). If public sector jobs had increased as much under Obama as Bush, our unemployment numbers would be less<4%.  See http://pragcap.com/obama-government-job-slayer. Obama's blip was the census. Obviously have the huge growth in public service workers between 2000-2004 isn't remotely possible

As far as 50% all by himself, that is less than Reagan did in his first 4 years.  Too bad Obama wasn't a conservative like Reagan. Hiring 300k government workers and 500k military guys (adjust for population and would be almost double today) and drastically increasing the budget deficit (the 100 billion Obama added over the existing Bush deficit palls to the Reagan Stimulus) might have been enough for a stronger economic rebound.

I hope facts don't ruin your reality too much.....

Quote:

I don't think anyone thinks he has all the answers.   His biggest advantage.....He's not President Obama.

What continues to be missed is that the President has had 4 years and in that time has accomplished virtually nothing in terms of improving the economy or creating jobs (except in the public sector) and his only real accomplishment has been to increase the deficit from $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a 50% increase all by himself.  Hey, if you're into deficit spending, you might as well go big or go home.......

[Archie Bunker]

Jack knows that in golf, there are winners and losers. Obama would run PGA tournaments with handicaps, so everyone would "even out". There would be no winners. Everyone loses, just like in Obama's vision of America.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Archie Bunker

Jack knows that in golf, there are winners and losers. Obama would run PGA tournaments with handicaps, so everyone would "even out". There would be no winners. Everyone loses, just like in Obama's vision of America.

Well, at least we would have won the Ryder Cup with a points redistribution.

[burner]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Ah yes, the Italian model for economic prosperity. Another EU nation whose debt exceeds GDP. Now I understand.

By the way, who's "telling you" that Republicans don't give a damn about 49% of our countrymen?

They were Mitt the Mutts own words recorded secretly and now available, to his embarrassment, for all to witness. My bad, I had previously said 49% and now apologise to all y'all :-

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney said. “All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president (Obama) no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax… My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uxYXT7G7xg

Neither Italian or Greek, garder deviner!

[newtogolf]

Great analysis.  I agree with you on all points, except foreign policy.  I think Obama is making a mistake with his passive approach toward North Korea, and his distancing the US from Israel.  While Israel has it's downside, they are our only true ally in the ME.

I especially agree with revamping the tax code.  I'd like to see it simplified to the point that we can shrink the enormous size of the IRS.  Give Romney some time with public speaking, it took Obama 4 years to figure out how to do it without a teleprompter, though GW never seemed to get the hang of it.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Well, whomever I vote for, it won't be about my clients' best interests. It is about where I'd like the country headed. I think a President can at least set a tone.

Agree - it's a choice between two men.

....

To tell you the truth, it's a mixed bag between the two. Romney may get rid of the estate tax. That helps, but the next Democrat will reinstate it. It's happened previously. We know about Obama. All we know about Romney is that he buys companies and tries to make them efficient. If they're not, he drains them with fees and bankrupts them. That's efficient. Does that work in government?

If Romney said - I will reform the entire government, reform the entire tax system and get something going for the 21st century, and make our budgets, including the military - more efficient and ignore the special interests that steals people of their common sense. We are going to take care of us while cooperating with other nations in leadership. And that guy had a plan - hey, I'd advise my client to go for him.

But Romney has not done that, and has done the opposite in some cases. We don't know who he is other than a businessman who exploits tax loopholes ... and that by itself does not lend itself to a recommendation for President.

Between the two? - your call.

[Bullitt5339]

Both candidates are horrible choices, the only choice is if you're actually in the 53% who pay taxes is: where do you want your money spent at.....  Neither party will actually shrink the size of government, they just spend more of our money on different things.  The National Government (I will no longer call them the Federal Government, because it no longer meets the definition) has never been successful at anything they've taken over from the free market or private entities.  Compare UPS to USPS.  The Fed vs. the Gold Standard.  Everything they touch turns to crap, no matter which party is in power.  Now they're involved in my healthcare?  Great.....  I was promised that my healthcare for my family would decrease under the current regime by $1500.  Remember that speech?  Mine has increased $1800 in the past 2 years.  More broken promises, more rhetoric to get elected or reelected and then no action.

Republicans block all the legislation?  Sounds like a good excuse until you realize that the current regime had complete control with vast majorities for the 1st two years and still nothing happened.  The people got pissed and kicked a bunch out and gave the House to the Republicans hoping for something good to happen.  Still nothing gets done.  I don't want to talk about the worthless Senate.  Just 2 weeks ago, with polls showing that 94-96% of Americans are against sending foreign aid to Syria, Egypt and Pakistan, our Senate leadership voted overwhelmingly 81-10 to continue aid to countries that hate us.  Most of them on either side ignored their oath and job to speak for the people they're elected to represent.

Bush gets a lot of blame for the current situation, but economists can point most of our current crisis to the housing bust.  Why did the housing bust happen?  Because Clinton-led legislation forced banks to make high risk loans to people who they knew couldn't repay them.  G.W. was warned about the crisis coming but did nothing to change the regulations.  Banks were more than willing to loan the money because the housing market was booming, and they could foreclose and flip the houses for even more profit.  Individuals bought houses with low initial interest rates and loans that would allow them to just pay interest for a number of years, effectively putting them in more house than they can afford, and most knew it.  But it was no big deal, they could sell the house in the booming and inflated real estate market, make some money and live above their means for a few years and then do it all over again.....  Until it all caught up and crashed.  Everyone was guilty in that one, Republicans, Democrats, Banks and the Individuals.

A very smart economist once said "Only borrow money if you have the ability to pay it back, or borrowing the money will give you the capability to pay it back".  Noone, especially our government, a lot of corporations or our citizens seem to follow this anymore at all, and that's a huge problem in itself.

It doesn't matter who we elect and put in the White House anymore.  Nothing will drastically change for the better until our politicians actually represent We The People instead of themselves, which won't happen until we reach the level of crisis to where they can't ignore it and address it with empty promises and more unnecessary spending.  When we're in the situation that Greece is in right now, things will change.  Until then, it's business as usual, which isn't good for any of us in the long run, no matter what side of the isle you support.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Great analysis.  I agree with you on all points, except foreign policy.  I think Obama is making a mistake with his passive approach toward North Korea, and his distancing the US from Israel.  While Israel has it's downside, they are our only true ally in the ME.

I especially agree with revamping the tax code.  I'd like to see it simplified to the point that we can shrink the enormous size of the IRS.  Give Romney some time with public speaking, it took Obama 4 years to figure out how to do it without a teleprompter, though GW never seemed to get the hang of it.

Yes - think you're right about N. Korea, but he is not distancing himself from Israel, only Netanyahu. With Iran's currency dropping 40% in a week, Netanyahu is now changing his tune - turning to stiffer sanctions. But Obama has dropped the ball on the Palestinian issue.