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

[newtogolf]

It's not that simple, someone making $250K in Montana might be rich, someone making $250K living in Manhatten is living check to check.  If a guy making $250K  has adjusted his lifestyle to require $250K, that person can no more afford a tax increase than a guy making $50K.

Why not tax the people savings, since Obama seems to think the rich are sitting on piles of money.  Increase capital gains tax on stock and bond gains.  How about all elected officials and their appointed staffs take pay cuts and give up some of those Cadillac health care plans they give themselves?  Let's make those on welfare work for their money rather sit at home and do nothing.  Let's stop bailing out businesses that aren't profitable rather than print cash and hand it to them.  Stop sending money overseas when we need it here.

Originally Posted by 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.

[allin]

Your blanket statement that many people think they are entitled to a job, you specified the public sector, is emblematic of an intolerant statement based on prejudice, assumption, resentment, ignorance. This is the classic way code words are used. Any real research would prove that the statement you made has no basis in fact. If anything statements, such as those made by Romney demonstrate, at least for him, a huge sense of entitlment. Capitalism is not a religion. It is basically unstable and is subject to abuse. Like any other institution it should be subject to criticism. Like any institution we should be free to address its weaknesses.

[David in FL]

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.

I agree. What you propose is simple to understand. That someone be able to tell another person what is "enough". How much they can earn and what level of success they may achieve before they're not allowed any more. To each according to his needs....... And someone else will determine your needs. Sorry, that's not America.....at least it shouldn't be. :-(

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I agree. What you propose is simple to understand. That someone be able to tell another person what is "enough". How much they can earn and what level of success they may achieve before they're not allowed any more.

To each according to his needs....... And someone else will determine your needs.

Sorry, that's not America.....at least it shouldn't be.

I have no idea where you're getting that kind of conclusion from, but it's not from me.

[David in FL]

Your blanket statement that many people think they are entitled to a job, you specified the public sector, is emblematic of an intolerant statement based on prejudice, assumption, resentment, ignorance. This is the classic way code words are used. Any real research would prove that the statement you made has no basis in fact. If anything statements, such as those made by Romney demonstrate, at least for him, a huge sense of entitlment. Capitalism is not a religion. It is basically unstable and is subject to abuse. Like any other institution it should be subject to criticism. Like any institution we should be free to address its weaknesses.

Many people DO think they're entitled to a job. Do you really argue that?! What I said was that many of them work in the public sector, also true. Many also work in the private sector, but I correctly pointed out that the one area that has seen job growth these past 4 years IS the public sector, and that supports my contention that we're fast heading towards statism. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're bigoted. Save that term for where it really exists.

[newtogolf]

The weakness is that capitalism requires that everyone, minimally a majority will make their best effort to achieve financial success and independance.

There is a percentage of society that either due to mental and / or  physical limitations cannot participate as intended in a capitalistic society, and those individuals should be cared for.  There is also percentage that were contributing to society and due to circumstances beyond their control now require assistance, those people should be cared for until they can get back on their feet.

The section of the population that believes its everyone elses job to take care of them while they sit on their asses and do nothing but walk out to the mailbox to collect their welfare check is the problem and weakness of capitalism.  Capitalism can support a low percentage of free loaders but when their numbers increase it puts a drain on everyone, as we are witnessing now.

The democrats cater to this group as this is where the majority of their votes come from, while the republicans want to force them to get a job and earn their check.  As this group grows the problem with democracy is that the people not contributing to society will control the government until the only solution will be to switch from capitalism to socialism to maintain the voting majority which is what has begun to happen these last 4 years.

Originally Posted by allin

Capitalism is not a religion. It is basically unstable and is subject to abuse. Like any other institution it should be subject to criticism. Like any institution we should be free to address its weaknesses.

[x129]

It has more to do with no demand. If you currently employ 6 plumbers and you have work for 5.5, you don't hire another. If you currently have 6 plumbers and have work for 8, you hire more. Business's don't hire people because they have cash. The hire people because they think those people will make them more money.   Now the uncertainty (i.e. will congress really destroy the economy by slashing spending in 2013) affects demand predications to some extend.

FWIW I am all in favor of a flat tax.  We spent something like 4 trillion dollars in 2010 and 300 million americans. Everyone pays 13k a year and the budget is balance. My family of 4 gets a nice 200k tax cut while the average family of 4 will have a couple of thousand of dollars to live on for the whole year. Sounds great.

I know most people want a flat tax rate not a flat tax. Guess what? That simplifies pretty much nothing. The tax brakets take up about 4 pages of the tax code. You still have to define what income is, what types get taxed (i.e. how many of the flat tax guys want capital gains taxed), exemptions (not many people are in favor of taxing the first dollar of someone making 15k/year), and what deductions you allow for both business and personal use.   You want to simplify taxes? Start removing special interest items. Get rid of the deduction for charitable contributions. Get rid of the deductions for state level taxes (i.e. why should texas subsidize CA tax payers).  Get rid of the mortgage deduction.  You can do all of that without touching the number of rates.

Originally Posted by David in FL

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.

[allin]

Many people DO think they're entitled to a job. Do you really argue that?! What I said was that many of them work in the public sector, also true. Many also work in the private sector, but I correctly pointed out that the one area that has seen job growth these past 4 years IS the public sector, and that supports my contention that we're fast heading towards statism. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're bigoted. Save that term for where it really exists.

Disagreement is different than unsubstantiated assertions. Just because you state that many people feel that way doesn't make it so. Research on societal attitudes does not support your statement. Research shows people have higher expectations of their employyers then in the past concerning what constitutes good treatment. As far as expectations of employment stability, people expect to have to change jobs more often than in the past. Research has shown almost no change in basic attitudes towards employment in the last 35 years. The facts just don't support your statement. In fact the growth of women in the workplace and the number of people working second jobs is the real response to lack of income growth for over 50 percent of Americans. The growth in public sector jobs is not charity, by the way that is federal government only, which some include military in. State and local public sector employment has decreased significantly. In any event 35 years of asking government to do more, often while underfunded is because more and more is expected of government. My experience has been that the services people want cut are always those they don't benefit from.

[David in FL]

Disagreement is different than unsubstantiated assertions. Just because you state that many people feel that way doesn't make it so. Research on societal attitudes does not support your statement. Research shows people have higher expectations of their employyers then in the past concerning what constitutes good treatment. As far as expectations of employment stability, people expect to have to change jobs more often than in the past. Research has shown almost no change in basic attitudes towards employment in the last 35 years. The facts just don't support your statement. In fact the growth of women in the workplace and the number of people working second jobs is the real response to lack of income growth for over 50 percent of Americans. The growth in public sector jobs is not charity, by the way that is federal government only, which some include military in. State and local public sector employment has decreased significantly. In any event 35 years of asking government to do more, often while underfunded is because more and more is expected of government. My experience has been that the services people want cut are always those they don't benefit from.

Please show me the research that tells you that there are not people who feel they're entitled to a job. Heck, I can point to posts in this thread that support my contention. You're right though....asking government to do more is why the size of government increases. Statism again. Government is too big and does FAR too much. You'll note though that this discussion has been about federal income tax and the role of the federal government. You'll also note my support of our federalist system. Gotta admit though I didn't quite understand the vehemence of your response until I looked at your profile and noticed your self-described occupation is "bureaucrat". Now I understand.....

[David in FL]

It has more to do with no demand. If you currently employ 6 plumbers and you have work for 5.5, you don't hire another. If you currently have 6 plumbers and have work for 8, you hire more. Business's don't hire people because they have cash. The hire people because they think those people will make them more money.   Now the uncertainty (i.e. will congress really destroy the economy by slashing spending in 2013) affects demand predications to some extend.

Sometimes..... But oftentimes that 6th plumber is hired because it allows for increased capacity. The problem, and the overriding economic uncertainty lies in our current administration and what legislation may be passed, signed, and enacted that will further tax, or otherwise cost employers money that they would otherwise use for expansion and to create jobs. If Romney wins, and Republicans maintain control of the House, watch things break lose. I'll be hiring, that's for sure!

[newtogolf]

Exactly this!  If the business owner has enough work for 5.5 plumbers he has two choices, try to make his 5 plumbers work harder to cover for the excess work or hire another plumber.  If the economy is stable, the threat of new taxes is minimal and the government is relatively business friendly then he's likely to hire the extra plumber to expand his business.

If the economic outlook looks bleak and there's the threat of new taxes  he's likely to not hire the 6th plumber, place additional demands on his current staff and bank the extra profits.  This is what's happening now, businesses are not expanding because the current president is not business friendly (unless you're GM, Chrysler or a bank) and the economic future is anything but stable despite what Obama might say.

Originally Posted by David in FL

Sometimes..... But oftentimes that 6th plumber is hired because it allows for increased capacity. The problem, and the overriding economic uncertainty lies in our current administration and what legislation may be passed, signed, and enacted that will further tax, or otherwise cost employers money that they would otherwise use for expansion and to create jobs.

If Romney wins, and Republicans maintain control of the House, watch things break lose. I'll be hiring, that's for sure!

[14ledo81]

Sometimes..... But oftentimes that 6th plumber is hired because it allows for increased capacity. The problem, and the overriding economic uncertainty lies in our current administration and what legislation may be passed, signed, and enacted that will further tax, or otherwise cost employers money that they would otherwise use for expansion and to create jobs. If Romney wins, and Republicans maintain control of the House, watch things break lose. I'll be hiring, that's for sure!

Gasp!! I knew it. You are one of those miserable employee exploiting, business owners.

[onesome]

My opinion of Jack just lessened, not so much that hes endorsing Romney (who I'm not voting for) but that he would use his experiences in competitive golf as an argument to elect Romney over Obama.Not everyone can be as successful as Jack was and he says things like just work as hard as I did and you too can win 18 majors....what a bunch of smoke.Exploitationism has taken over capitalism and the longer they can scare and piss people off the longer they get away with it.

[David in FL]

Gasp!! I knew it. You are one of those miserable employee exploiting, business owners.

I wish. I just work for a couple of rich guys who see some value in my efforts on their behalf. Of course, one of the reasons they value my efforts is that I make good operational decisions on their behalf.....like when to hire, when not to, and yes, when to reduce when the business and political environment don't support what we'd really like to do....

[David in FL]

My opinion of Jack just lessened, not so much that hes endorsing Romney (who I'm not voting for) but that he would use his experiences in competitive golf as an argument to elect Romney over Obama.Not everyone can be as successful as Jack was and he says things like just work as hard as I did and you too can win 18 majors....what a bunch of smoke.Exploitationism has taken over capitalism and the longer they can scare and piss people off the longer they get away with it.

In for a penny, in for a pound.... May I ask, why are you voting for President Obama? I'm genuinely interested. Thks.

[burner]

Not my fight but surely you guys over there cannot seriously see Mitt the Mutt as a viable alternative.

This is the guy who wants to totally abandon 49% of his countrymen so that his cronies, the other 51%, can keep the nations entire wealth to themselves - not to mention his open windows policy for aircraft!

Just askin'.

[David in FL]

Not my fight but surely you guys over there cannot seriously see Mitt the Mutt as a viable alternative. This is the guy who wants to totally abandon 49% of his countrymen so that his cronies, the other 51%, can keep the nations entire wealth to themselves - not to mention his open windows policy for aircraft! Just askin'.

An alternative to what, socialism? Yup. My schnauzer is a viable alternative to that. America doesn't swing that way. At least she shouldn't......

[allin]

Please show me the research that tells you that there are not people who feel they're entitled to a job. Heck, I can point to posts in this thread that support my contention. You're right though....asking government to do more is why the size of government increases. Statism again. Government is too big and does FAR too much. You'll note though that this discussion has been about federal income tax and the role of the federal government. You'll also note my support of our federalist system. Gotta admit though I didn't quite understand the vehemence of your response until I looked at your profile and noticed your self-described occupation is "bureaucrat". Now I understand.....

Yes, I was a social worker for many years. I have almost worked in the private sector and owned a food and beverage business. I have degrees in business and social work. It is interesting that you are insinuating I am biased. You might consider that I have education and experience supporting my stance. You are the one who is ignorant and biased. You don't care about the truth. I am done. You can choose to educate yourself if you wish.