|
Post by jiminix on Dec 10, 2017 13:24:54 GMT -7
I ran across some golf news today, and it reminded me that someone here used to keep us informed about presidential golfing. I have been puzzled about their mysterious silence recently about golf - I guess their subscription to Golf News Magazine must have lapsed.
So for those of you who have been eagerly awaiting this news for the current occupant of the White House:
Days in office_________________324 Days at Trump property_________ 106 (one third of days in office) Days golfing __________________ 82 (one quarter of days in office)
For comparison, Obama golfed 333 times during his entire 8 years in office. Trump is already a quarter (24.6%) of the way to that number. Trump used to frequently criticize Obama for golfing, and said "When I become president, I won't have time to go golfing." Yet in his first 100 days, he golfed 19 times; Obama didn't golf until his 120th day, George Bush until his 135th day. (A different source said Obama golfed once during his first 100 days.)
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Dec 11, 2017 6:31:52 GMT -7
Trump usually has someone from congress golfing with him making it a 'working' round of golf. When I was a sales and service rep I spent several days per year playing customer golf. The fact that he goes to his own properties should be a plus. Maybe someone can compare the number of weekends worked.
Besides all that, who cares? The stock market has set 81 records this year. GDP has seen 3% or more growth each quarter this year, and the national debt is growing at half the pace of the previous administration.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 13, 2017 17:15:54 GMT -7
Besides all that, who cares? The stock market has set 81 records this year. GDP has seen 3% or more growth each quarter this year, and the national debt is growing at half the pace of the previous administration. Of course. When you're offering the rich more money, they get excited and inflate the market. Notice how wages are still stagnant? Notice how the tax breaks are helping those who don't need help? But in the end, they will cut programs that help people in order to increase monies. Would you be excited if the government offered you a new house and a new car? Of course.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Dec 14, 2017 6:14:21 GMT -7
Besides all that, who cares? The stock market has set 81 records this year. GDP has seen 3% or more growth each quarter this year, and the national debt is growing at half the pace of the previous administration. Of course. When you're offering the rich more money, they get excited and inflate the market. What money are you talking about, or are you parroting rhetoric?Notice how wages are still stagnant? Notice how the tax breaks are helping those who don't need help? But in the end, they will cut programs that help people in order to increase monies. How many programs are already in place (and not working) 70% or more of the federal expenditures are "programs". Would you be excited if the government offered you a new house and a new car? Of course. Absolutely not. There would be too many strings attached. Remember, whatever the government "gives away" is paid by tax payersMy responses are in bold above. And, I'll repeat: Besides all that, who cares? The stock market has set 81 records this year. GDP has seen 3% or more growth each quarter this year, and the national debt is growing at half the pace of the previous administration. I am more results oriented as long as the means aren't illegal, immoral, or fattening.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 14, 2017 10:27:53 GMT -7
Very simple, tax breaks.
The elephant in the room you mean? The military industrial complex?
If the government gave you a tax break, you would take it. And if that tax break bought you a house and a car, you would buy it. That was my point.
It's funny how republicans want to go back to the old world but the forget the top tax rate on the rich was 90% back in the early 60's.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Dec 14, 2017 11:42:45 GMT -7
Hoofie is correct. From this April 2017 article: "In fiscal year 2016, which ended this past Sept. 30, the federal government spent just under $4 trillion, and about $2.7 trillion – more than two-thirds of the total – went for various kinds of social insurance (Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, unemployment compensation, veterans benefits and the like). Another $604 billion, or 15.3% of total spending, went for national defense; net interest payments on government debt was about $240 billion, or 6.1%. Education aid and related social services were about $114 billion, or less than 3% of all federal spending. Everything else – crop subsidies, space travel, highway repairs, national parks, foreign aid and much, much more – accounted for the remaining 6%." www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 14, 2017 14:13:36 GMT -7
Nobody is doubting what Hoofie has said.
We can't ignore that military is the biggest expenditure the government has. Sure, perhaps at some place at some time other things cost more. But the military is by large the biggest money we spend. Of course unless you count welfare for the rich.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Dec 14, 2017 15:36:03 GMT -7
Both the Department Health and Human Services $1.01 TRILLION and the Social Security Administration $908 BILLION are greater than the Department of Defense's $516 BILLION. - From the 2017 United States Budget Estimate. federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-EstimateThe Department Health and Human Services FY budget is almost twice that of the Department of Defense. The Social Security Administration's budget is over half again that of the Department of Defense. The FY 2017 budget tracks fairly close to the actual FY 2017 expenditures I already posted. You're thinking only of the federal discretionary spending, and yes, the military is the largest. But federal spending is the combined discretionary and mandatory spending. You're leaving out the greater share of federal spending. www.thebalance.com/current-us-discretionary-federal-budget-and-spending-3306308
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 14, 2017 16:07:24 GMT -7
Of course. But, spending is spending. If I go out to Burger King it still comes of of my household money. Sure, my mortgage and electric is paid first, but that money still comes from somewhere.
So if I create a budget (which I have because I love spreadsheets)and all money has to be accounted for, it doesn't really matter. If I can't buy food because the rent is to high (which would be roof first and food second) then I have an issue. So no matter where military or Social Security spending comes from, it is still money that needs budgeted.
I stand behind my post although you are right.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Dec 15, 2017 6:03:42 GMT -7
As a public service announcement, tax rates are merely the mandatory minimum payment to the government. Those that want higher taxes are free to pay more, as it would be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 15, 2017 15:36:05 GMT -7
As a public service announcement, tax rates are merely the mandatory minimum payment to the government. Those that want higher taxes are free to pay more, as it would be accepted. That's a typical right wing talking point I have heard for years. So because the smart people in society see that the working class is being bent over while the rich sit at desks with a smile and collect money on the back of the working, the right gives breaks and suggests the poor pay more if they don't like it. All while bowing to their corporate overlords. That ideology has worked so well. Thank Trump and his party for the end of the free web as well. I suppose if we don't like it, we can start our own internet companies.... But wait.... I'm sure there are regulations that prevent that as that would hurt the corporate overlords.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Dec 15, 2017 16:55:23 GMT -7
As a public service announcement, tax rates are merely the mandatory minimum payment to the government. Those that want higher taxes are free to pay more, as it would be accepted. osha says your statement "... suggests the poor pay more if they don't like it . I can't find anything that comes remotely close. Do you? Maybe this is related to his claim that "...the military is by large the biggest money we spend ."
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 15, 2017 17:33:29 GMT -7
Social Security accounts for 25% of mandatory spending. But people pay into Social Security so we can scratch that as people paid in to get that money. Medicare is a pay to play came and again, people paid into it so it is owed.
Then if you look at what is left, military and non defense spending is pretty close and war will tip that scale.
It's really not my fault or do I care that the government could not manage programs right. The money they spend on S.S would be a lot easier if they would have kept their hands out the pot.
So yes, military spending is out of control while we always look for cuts on the back of the poor and elderly, the government created the problem and now they want to expand on the problem by cutting taxes for the rich.
Oh well, to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Dec 15, 2017 18:23:35 GMT -7
Social Security accounts for 25% of mandatory spending. But people pay into Social Security so we can scratch that as people paid in to get that money. Medicare is a pay to play came and again, people paid into it so it is owed. Then if you look at what is left, military and non defense spending is pretty close and war will tip that scale. It's really not my fault or do I care that the government could not manage programs right. The money they spend on S.S would be a lot easier if they would have kept their hands out the pot. So yes, military spending is out of control while we always look for cuts on the back of the poor and elderly, the government created the problem and now they want to expand on the problem by cutting taxes for the rich. Oh well, to each their own. You need to check your figures. SS accounts for 40% of mandatory spending, not 25%. It's almost double Medicare and more than double Medicaid. Military spending doesn't come under mandatory spending as it's discretionary spending. - from the 31 Oct 2017 article www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789Once again, mandatory spending accounts for 62% of total spending. Of the 32% left that is discretionary spending, the military accounts for just 15%. "In fiscal year 2016, which ended this past Sept. 30, the federal government spent just under $4 trillion, and about $2.7 trillion – more than two-thirds of the total – went for various kinds of social insurance (Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, unemployment compensation, veterans benefits and the like). Another $604 billion, or 15.3% of total spending, went for national defense; net interest payments on government debt was about $240 billion, or 6.1%. Education aid and related social services were about $114 billion, or less than 3% of all federal spending. Everything else – crop subsidies, space travel, highway repairs, national parks, foreign aid and much, much more – accounted for the remaining 6%." www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/And from another previous post: "Both the Department Health and Human Services $1.01 TRILLION and the Social Security Administration $908 BILLION are greater than the Department of Defense's $516 BILLION. - From the 2017 United States Budget Estimate. federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-EstimateThe Department Health and Human Services FY budget is almost twice that of the Department of Defense. The Social Security Administration's budget is over half again that of the Department of Defense. "
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 15, 2017 19:00:56 GMT -7
It accounts for 25% of all spending. And again, it don't count and I don't care. They should have fixed the problem ages ago and kept their hands out the pot.
|
|