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

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Mr Obama PROMISED to fundamentally change the nation. Too few people understood what he meant, and continues to mean.

This country will not survive as a land of opportunity and personal freedom, to suceed or fail, another 4 years like the last.

Why don't you to help us to understand, cuz I sure don't. Exactly what is Obama doing that will destroy this country? Cuz I believe what he actually said as he would change (don't know about the fundamentally part but whatever), he would change how Washington works.

This is typical dog-whistle talk from the right - he's not one of us, he's got some kind of nefarious plan to have us all facing Mecca five times a day, etc etc.

Oh yeah - he's gonna take your guns away too. Forgot about that one.

Realize this. The way our government is set up are three separate but equal branches - Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Even if all the tinfoil-hat stuff said about Obama were true, there is no way any of it would occur. Let's take banning guns, since that seems to be the one used to incite false outrage. The President doesn't make laws . He can't ban anything.

So I get a chuckle when I hear this 'reelect Obama and the real Socialist Kenyan-born America-hating monster will come out. He laid low his first term...but the second term, look out...'

I chuckle because it's laughable. This country is stronger than any one person. It was designed that way.

[David in FL]

Why don't you to help us to understand, cuz I sure don't. Exactly what is Obama doing that will destroy this country? Cuz I believe what he actually said as he would change (don't know about the fundamentally part but whatever), he would change how Washington works.  This is typical dog-whistle talk from the right - he's not one of us, he's got some kind of nefarious plan to have us all facing Mecca five times a day, etc etc.  Oh yeah - he's gonna take your guns away too. Forgot about that one. Realize this. The way our government is set up are three separate but equal branches - Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Even if all the tinfoil-hat stuff said about Obama were true, there is no way any of it would occur. Let's take banning guns, since that seems to be the one used to incite false outrage. The President doesn't make laws . He can't ban anything.  So I get a chuckle when I hear this 'reelect Obama and the real Socialist Kenyan-born America-hating monster will come out. He laid low his first term...but the second term, look out...'  I chuckle because it's laughable. This country is stronger than any one person. It was designed that way.

Very simple. He believes in socialism and statism and is determined to take the country there. We don't have to wait for the socialist to come out. We've seen it clearly for the last 4 years.

[Valleygolfer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Quote:

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.

Um no, they changed when he signed the bill. I am in the healthcare industry. Higher premiums, deductibles and copays as of 2 years ago. I think you putting sugar over the bill or reciting rhetoric from moveon. There are good and bad points for the bill but our human rights are once again being infringed upon.

When Clinton was in office the internet bubble was just getting started.  More people had money and had insurance. Now the insurance co have to take from a smaller pool and want to build up money before they lose their clientele to obamacare.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Very simple. He believes in socialism and statism and is determined to take the country there.

We don't have to wait for the socialist to come out. We've seen it clearly for the last 4 years.

More like the last two hundred years.

Teachers, firefighters, policemen, postal workers. Just four examples of 'statism' as you call it. This country has been 'socialist' for a loooong time.

See, it's these types of proclamations - 'He believes in socialism and statism' that are just...funny. I can't think of anything else to call it. Cuz again, it's an attempt to paint him as an outsider with nefarious plans for the country. His first term has not indicated anything of that order, but apparently people on the right (not saying you're like that, but many on the right are) keep using these vague proclamations about his clandestine plans.

Now. Want to know what's really happening? You have a Democratic President espousing Democratic Party beliefs. His opponent is a Republican espousing Republican Party beliefs. Obama is no more a Socialist/Statist than Clinton. But he does have a funny name, which is enough for some people to proclaim he's an 'other' and not to be trusted.

It's a sign of desperation, because he won in 2008 very convincingly, and it looks like it's going to happen again in 2012. The final argument people have against Obama is a rehash of the same stuff that didn't work in 2008.

So either the majority of the country is brainwashed, or you're simply wrong about him. I would go with you being wrong than the collective conscious of millions of Americans.

[x129]

Feel free to give any numbers to back up your point of view.  If you look at the national averages that isn't true. See http://ehbs.kff.org/?page=charts&id;=1&sn;=6&ch;=2659. Was the family increase between 2010 and 2011 abnormally huge? Sure but the ones between 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 were as big or bigger with zero health care reform. Obamacare just gives the insurance industry a scapegoat for increasing rates.

Quote:

Um no, they changed when he signed the bill. I am in the healthcare industry. Higher premiums, deductibles and copays as of 2 years ago. I think you putting sugar over the bill or reciting rhetoric from moveon. There are good and bad points for the bill but our human rights are once again being infringed upon.

When Clinton was in office the internet bubble was just getting started.  More people had money and had insurance. Now the insurance co have to take from a smaller pool and want to build up money before they lose their clientele to obamacare.

[David in FL]

More like the last two hundred years. Teachers, firefighters, policemen, postal workers. Just four examples of 'statism' as you call it. This country has been 'socialist' for a loooong time.

You clearly don't understand socialism as a doctrine, nor what is meant by "statist". The fact that we have a federal government that provides services for the common good and use of all citizens, in no way equates to socialism. And by the way, 3 of the 4 to which you refer are local functions, not national.....as is appropriate under our federalist system. By the way, Mr Obama's plans aren't clandestine. He's been very clear about them. I won't even call them nefarious. They just reflect values with which I strongly disagree. I simply believe in individual freedom and the strength of what us old guys used to refer to as The American Dream. Back when we used to celebrate entrepreneurialism and success, not denigrate it. If you, or anyone else doesn't hold those values, then you should absolutely continue to vote for the man and party that wants to continue to move away from them. It doesn't even mean that I think you're a bad person. We just differ in how we value the individual, view the Country, and the role that we believe Government should play in our lives.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Back when we used to celebrate entrepreneurialism and success, not denigrate it.

And exactly who is denigrating it?

[David in FL]

[INDENT][/INDENT][quote name="zipazoid" url="/t/62367/jack-nicklaus-endorses-romney-mitt-calls-jack-greatest-athlete-of-the-20th-century/90#post_772572"] And exactly who is denigrating it? [/quote] You're kidding, right? Success used to be celebrated. Now it's viewed by an inordinate number of people as either luck, or worse, achieved through the exploitation of their employees. I, for one, LOVE rich people. They give me a job and allow me to provide for my family. Im in no way entitled to that job. They employ me because I provide them value. My work earns them more money than they pay me. That's not exploitation, it's common economic sense. There are a lot of people out there today who think they're entitled to a job.....many work in the public sector. The one area that has seen job growth these past 4 years. Statism.....

[zipazoid]

Not kidding at all.

Okay. So who is hating rich people? Who is viewing them as you're describing? An 'inordinate amount of people'? What's that mean?

We're in a financial crisis, and the only way out of it is using all weapons at our disposal - cutting spending and increasing revenues . Enter rich people. All Obama has asked from them is to pay a little more in taxes. In other words, to give something they have an abundance of.

If you think that's 'hating' on them, it's not an accurate definition of hate, imo. Some would call that a sacrifice for the good of the country. Depends on your POV. But I see no hate.

[David in FL]

We're in a financial crisis, and the only way out of it is using all weapons at our disposal - cutting spending and increasing revenues . Enter rich people. All Obama has asked from them is to pay a little more in taxes. In other words, to give something they have an abundance of.

Now we're back to the question I asked you earlier and you didn't answer. Who the hell is going to determine who has an "abundance" of anything? You? Mr Obama? If we're talking pure tax revenues, then lets revert back to one of my original points. Nearly 50% of working aged people, with jobs who are earning income pay NO federal income tax at all! That's where you start. Why won't that happen under the current versions of a democrat administration and congress? Because they count on those people for a large % of their votes. The "rich" are a voting minority. It's simple math.....

[zipazoid]

Okay, then to answer your previous question, the answer seems to be those making greater than $250k a year. That seems to be the number being tossed around.

And where we differ is on who to get the additional revenues from. You're saying make more people pay, so someone who makes, say, $10k a year should pay something in taxes. I'm saying those making more than $250k should pay more. You're trying to squeeze blood from a rock, taking a resource - money - that is in short supply with those on the bottom of the financial spectrum. I'm saying take it from those have an, ahem 'abundance' of it. Cuz I think you would have to admit, it would be less harmful to a well-off person to part with a little more money than it is for someone barely hanging on.

So it comes down to our definitions of fairness. Yours is everyone pays, even those that cannot afford it. I'm saying take it from those that can afford it.

[mvmac]

Just want to say, thanks for keeping the conversation civil

[David in FL]

Okay, then to answer your previous question, the answer seems to be those making greater than $250k a year. That seems to be the number being tossed around. And where we differ is on who to get the additional revenues from. You're saying make more people pay, so someone who makes, say, $10k a year should pay something in taxes. I'm saying those making more than $250k should pay more. You're trying to squeeze blood from a rock, taking a resource - money - that is in short supply with those on the bottom of the financial spectrum. I'm saying take it from those have an, ahem 'abundance' of it. Cuz I think you would have to admit, it would be less harmful to a well-off person to part with a little more money than it is for someone barely hanging on. So it comes down to our definitions of fairness. Yours is everyone pays, even those that cannot afford it. I'm saying take it from those that can afford it.

One more time....WHO decides who "can afford it"? Once that's decided, pls tell me, how much should they pay of their "abundance"? What's their "fair share"? At what income level should people living in the country, enjoying the benefits that comes with that, be expected to help foot some of the cost?

[allin]

[INDENT][/INDENT] You're kidding, right? Success used to be celebrated. Now it's viewed by an inordinate number of people as either luck, or worse, achieved through the exploitation of their employees. I, for one, LOVE rich people. They give me a job and allow me to provide for my family. Im in no way entitled to that job. They employ me because I provide them value. My work earns them more money than they pay me. That's not exploitation, it's common economic sense. There are a lot of people out there today who think they're entitled to a job.....many work in the public sector. The one area that has seen job growth these past 4 years. Statism.....

Actually the failure of wealthy people and large business concerns to reinvest after their increased in retained profits, and the reduced infrastructure investment effects on long term growth are 2 of the top 6 causes for the current economic climate. APPLE for example is sitting on over 2 billion, 1/2 in Europe. And of course everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, having a job is part of that opportunity. If you cannot find a job, then you are basically denied full participation in society. It is always the people doing well yelling get a job, or life is not fair. Your attitude towards the public sector is basically bigotry.

[David in FL]

Actually the failure of wealthy people and large business concerns to reinvest after their increased in retained profits, and the reduced infrastructure investment effects on long term growth are 2 of the top 6 causes for the current economic climate. APPLE for example is sitting on over 2 billion, 1/2 in Europe. And of course everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, having a job is part of that opportunity. If you cannot find a job, then you are basically denied full participation in society. It is always the people doing well yelling get a job, or life is not fair. Your attitude towards the public sector is basically bigotry.

Any idea why businesses are not reinvesting right now? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with economic uncertainty......... Where might that be coming from? Do you know what bigotry is? Pls explain why I'm bigoted towards the public sector. A sector of which, as a retired Marine, I was a proud member for much of my adult life.

[zipazoid]

Quote:

One more time....WHO decides who "can afford it"?

Congress.

Quote:

Once that's decided, pls tell me, how much should they pay of their "abundance"? What's their "fair share"?

David, I'm not an actuary. I cannot answer that. But how about the levels under Clinton Admin? The rich still had plenty of money & we had budget surpluses.

Quote:

At what income level should people living in the country, enjoying the benefits that comes with that, be expected to help foot some of the cost?

You tell me. That's what you're proposing, that more people pay taxes, so give me your proposal.

[David in FL]

Congress.  David, I'm not an actuary. I cannot answer that. But how about the levels under Clinton Admin? The rich still had plenty of money & we had budget surpluses. You tell me. That's what you're proposing, that more people pay taxes, so give me your proposal.

Ahhhhh......so the people who are elected by the majority get to decide who pays more and who pays less, or nothing. That's where we are now, and that's why we're in such trouble. The majority are now voting to legally take from the minority for their own benefit. Not sustainable, as Alexander Tytler opined some 200 years ago. Again, who determines if you, I, or anyone else has "plenty"? The fact that you can even consider that someone else should be able to decide that you or I have "plenty" of anything, scares and saddens me at the same time. Again, certainly not The American Dream..... ......you can build a business and become successful, only to the point where the rest of us think you have plenty. Wow. I like either a flat tax, or the Fairtax. Both allow for participation by all, while maintaining a progressive aspect that strikes me as fair......

[zipazoid]

Laws are passed by Congress, David. That's our system. If it has resulted in the trouble we're in, change it...or try to.

And since you seem to have heartburn with the word 'plenty', try those who have 'more than others'. If that still doesn't work for you, don't know what to say. My proposal is pretty simple to understand.