[RJ_Daley]

Dave, your sharp elbows and desire to pick a fight with all comers inorder to reverberate your ideology is getting trite.  Your bombastic proclamations that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread display the same sort of discourse technique that the rt wing echo chamber uses in all discussions; that of making or paying homage to false and provocative partial situations and extrapolating them to your narrow minded ideology and authoratarian insistence that you are always right, all of the time.  You are becoming the Michele Bachmann of GCA.com.  

Rachele has you and the whole process pegged to a tee!:
http://blogdogcicle.blogspot.com/2010/11/rachel-maddow-explores-right-wing-lying.html

And, need I ask what probably any fair minded person would reply regarding now trying to detract and deride this Presidential trip of wide reaching international relations importance?  Really Dave, do you want to be so rediculously hypocritical as to not even mention every President in modern aviation history has made such trips and they all involve the same extensive advance planning and security concerns, and even moreso in the current terroistic world, that coincidentally the President is travelling into..staying at the same hotel that we saw that terror tragedy not too long ago, and Indonesia where Al=queda is known to have strong outposts, etc etc.  

If you want to spin your rt wing echo chamber, non contributory garbage and seek more confrontation with such foolish provocations, great, have at it with who ever will continue to engage you.  Not me, I'm out of this thread.  You have completely poluted it.  I'll take my lumps for also having gone astray, though most of my posts here have tried to bring it back to the tax questions that effect or don't effect membership at clubs.  but, mea culpa for straying further.

[Tim Bert]

I just did a quick Google search of:  "Obama Pelosi totalitarian"

One Million Three Hundred Seventy Thousand (1,370,000) hits.

I ain't the only one....  

Had no idea you could type that fast!

Did you use the "AND" search modifier?  If not you are getting hits for Obama and Pelosi that don't include totalitarianism.

But I suspect you know that.  

I'm still not gonna use the cheater line.......

fyi -

"McCain totalitarian" = 1,390,000 results

"republican totalitarian" = 3,410,000 results

"shivas totalitarian" = 355,000

"San Francisco Giants totalitarian" = 7,390  

Really?  Wow.  Learn something new every day...I'm going to play with it a little more...I thought the "and" was embedded and implied in whatever variant of boolean Google uses

I'm not so sure that Bill is right - if you type in a regular search and then use the advanced search the choices and search results would imply that the and is implied.

My point was more that you can link almost any word to totalitarian and still get a bunch of hits.

[JESII]

Is there really a question of whether or not increasing effective tax rates decreases disposable income which will decrease the number of people able to afford a private club which will result in fewer clubs?

I don't think Pat suggested it was more important than anything else, just that it was coming down the pike.



VK,

Your positions are as far askew as any opinion has ever been...on either side.

[David_Tepper]

From U.S. New & World Report, "How High Unemployment Will Addle Republicans":

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-High-Unemployment-Will-usnews-773726464.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

[corey miller]

Is there a problem with the discussion of tax policy and the implications on private club memberships?  If not, perhaps it would be more appropriate for those that actually BELONG to clubs to give the view.  In this way we won't have to rely on those who think they know how others will act and we will get the opinions of those who will actually make these  choices.

Sorry, I do have a problem when an increase in Caddie Fees in Westchester County Private Clubs  is somehow used as as indication of the economy.  

[Craig Disher]

Is there really a question of whether or not increasing effective tax rates decreases disposable income which will decrease the number of people able to afford a private club which will result in fewer clubs?

Doesn't it depend on how much the effective tax rates are increased? If the rates are only increased in the upper brackets, I doubt if the increase in taxes due would have much effect on the number of clubs.

We'll have a chance to see depending on the outcome of the current issue of extending the Bush tax cuts. The marginal rates for those making over $250K would increase from 33% to 36% (up to around $380K/yr) and the top rate would increase from 35 to 39.6%. If the Democrat position holds and those are the only rates that are increased, I don't imagine there will be much effect at all.

[David_Tepper]

"If The Economy Is So Bad, Who Is Buying All These Cars?"

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/if-the-economy-is-so-bad-who%27s-buying-all-these-cars-535577.html?tickers=TM,HMC,GM,F,AN,PAG,^DJI&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

[JESII]

Craig,

Could be, but it's hard to pin down any of this to anything more than theoretical. Let's say that increase only effects the $250+ people...just its implemetation will not cause many people to immediately withdraw from their club. It would certainly add pressure financially and over a few years, in a vacuum, the results would bear out. Because it takes time though, other factors could help and hurt each individual situation.

[Craig Disher]

Now there is government waste at its finest!

Actually, Tim, that would be the cost of this Asian trip of his.  

Now, I'll admit that I don't believe for a second that it's going to be $200MM a day.  That's been denied and I'll take that at face value, the same way I'd take at face value that a round at Pebble doesn't cost $20K.

But what IS it expected to cost?

That question has been asked by the press, and continues to be asked by the press, and The White House simply will not give an answer.

There are only two possible reasons for that:

(A) it's so outrageous, they are scared to say it....

or

(B) they don't know because they don't give a sh*t and never bothered to figure it out before playing with OPM....lovely.

Which of the two is more likely?  Which is worse?  Who knows!  Our "transparent" President won't deign to explain....

There actually is a third possible reason - it doesn't matter what it costs and the WH recognizes this as just another attack meme advanced by the right wing with the sole purpose of embarrassing the the president. Personally, if the trip can do anything to help defuse the anger in that part of the world, I don't care what it costs.

[Tim Bert]

Rachele has you and the whole process pegged to a tee!:
http://blogdogcicle.blogspot.com/2010/11/rachel-maddow-explores-right-wing-lying.html

I didn't watch the video clip, but someone on MSNBC caught the right wing lying?!?  Oh my goodness!!

I heard that someone on Fox News caught someone on the left-wing of lying too.

I'm still amazing that people cite either one of these sources as news or evidence of anything in this day and age.

[Craig Disher]

There actually is a third possible reason - it doesn't matter what it costs ....

Craig:  that's (B) above in my view.  How can the cost of stuff not matter when you're broke?  What kind of la-la land leadership is that?


Money isn't the root of all evil.  Other people's money is the root of all evil.  Whether it's Washington or Wall Street, when people have free reign to saw through OPM, that's exactly what's gonna happen, every fricking time....

I have no idea what you are talking about. The government has to continue to function. Would you prefer the trip not take place? (please don't answer, the question is rhetorical).

[Craig Disher]

Craig:  I don't think anyone could give you an intelligent answer to your question as to whether he should or should not take the trip unless they know, among other things, the cost.

My original point - inartfully made - was that if people question the trip by questioning the cost, then their purpose is most likely to embarrass the president. The president MUST travel to carry out his responsibilities and I think - or I at least hope - most of the country realizes that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Craig,

No doubt the trip probably has to take place and was scheduled well previous to the election.

My question is whether or not they could symbolically try to go at least a bit more frugally, given the budget situation?  I understand the President has to project a certain image.

As it happens, the other countries at the summit are probably going to press him to be more frugal, according to news reports.  While many countries are going on austerity budgets, Obama is the lone leader who thinks we can spend our way out of this recession.  Many others have been forced to begin to reduce debt and I have no doubt some near future President and Congress will have to make similar tough choices that we/they have been avoiding for....oh about 45 years.

The real OPM problem is its easier to get elected using it, especially when its our kids money you are using and no one really complains.  Or in other words, some think you can spend. I happen to fall in the "debt controls destiny" camp and blame both parties about 60-60%.......

[J Sadowsky]

Craig:  I don't think anybody disagrees with that.  

But when a guy who has forcefed a few trillion dollars of spending in less than 2 years takes a trip and some Indian official starts talking about $200MM a day and 40 planes and dozens of ships and 3000 people, I think it's not only reasonable but also necessary for the press to ask what this trip is gonna run us and get the facts.  Now, as I understand it, as of right now, the guy who promised the most transparent government in history, with everything down to the White House toilet paper decisions to be broadcast on C-SPAN, just won't say...about anything...the cost...the number of planes...the number of ships...the number of people...nuthin'.

This has to change.  Even if the cost is reasonable (and I have no idea what that is--$5MM?  $50MM? $100MM?  I have no idea)  and it's 5 planes and 3 ships and 200 people or whatever, ignoring the queston and stonewalling isn't just hypocritical or arrogant.  It's (dare I say it?) the type of thing that a totalitar....(nah, I won't say it...   ) despot would do.  

Shivas, you may want to stop getting your news from chain mails.  The fact is, it is not $200 million vs. stonewalling.  It is a made up number vs. classified information.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

[Jud_T]

Craig:  I don't think anybody disagrees with that.  

 the guy who promised the most transparent government in history, with everything down to the White House toilet paper decisions to be broadcast on C-SPAN,

I hear he uses expensive extra soft 2-ply, but only because this election caused his hemorrhoids to act up...

[Craig Disher]

Jeff,
Presidential trips may look extravagantly expensive but they're really not. The president travels on AF1 with some of his staff. The rest of the government employees travel, usually in coach, and receive a specific per diem based on the city they are visiting. I know that often the per diem does not cover all the costs of the trip but it's usually close. The state dinners, parties, etc. are paid for by the host country. Cost-savings are usually achieved by cutting back on the size of the entourage. I don't know if that was done here but having the president overseas for 10 days will require a lot of communications and security support people.

This thread is tedious and silly. I'm out.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Craig,

No doubt, Presidential trips and govt overhead costs are a drop in the bucket, budget wise.  So is foreign aid and welfare for that matter.  Hence, I asked if it would be worthwhile to make a symbolic gesture.  

Social Security, Medicare and defense are the big 3.  TARP and the Stimulus are current one year wonder offenders, as is the Iraq War and the War on Terror (a long term cost we can't keep putting off budget).  We can't balance the budget without huge cuts in all three, but they are so interwoven into lives of seniors (in the case of SS and MC) that it would be hard to do.

Here, from Wikipedia, is IMHO the biggest single problem we have:

"Medicare and Medicaid were added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue.

negative trends were exacerbated by a colossal mathematical error made in the 1972 amendments establishing the COLAs. The mathematical error which overcompensated for inflation was particularly detrimental given the double-digit inflation of this period, and the error led to benefit increases that were nowhere near financially sustainable. (They doubled the COLA for inflation...how does that happen at the National level?)

There is more, but basially, the demographics of social security have changed a bunch, but the political desire on both sides to keep giving away free money so they can get elected is problematic.   A balanced budget ammendment (with NBA salary cap style loop holes no doubt) or the people standing up and saying we need to spend what we take in is required.  Now, by voting Republican, many think they are saying that, but history proves they are no better than the Dems at practicing what they preach.

What we will probably get is a dozen more "commissions" to study the problem until well after anyone authorizing it is out of office and might have to act on the recommendations.

However, us running out of money has been predicted many, many times, just like running out of oil.  When will it really happen?

[Jim_Coleman]

    If golf is the window to a man's soul, then Boehner's a cheat and a crook.  Assuming Congressman Boehner is the same John Boehner who shows up when checking Ohio handicaps on GHIN, he's posted 20 scores since 6/09.  Yet it is reported here that he played 150 rounds this year.  What's up?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Funny but that Links Mag article made the same comment about Bill Clinton.

To be honest, I have taken mulligans and only sporadically report all my rounds for an official handicap.  I guess my chance at being President or Speaker of the House just went up in scandalous flames!

[J Sadowsky]

Shivas, you may want to stop getting your news from chain mails.  

I don't receive chain mails, but thanks for presuming where I get information from.  At least I know where you get yours -- from something called "Snopes" .... what in God's green earth is that?

The issue has been raised.  It really doesn't matter how it got raised.  Clearly, it's not $200MM a day (Lord, I hope not...that'd start impeachment hearings....)

So what is the cost?  

We don't know because it is classified.  But "classified" does not mean "whatever we want it to be in order to make a point/feign outrage/phrase bogus arguments in the form of questions."

Now, can we end this thread?  Obama is not going to make country clubs extinct because he has no power to impose his agenda.  The end.

[Rory Connaughton]

Boehner looks like the kind of fellow that blows in for a calcutta, bounces his entry fee and wins everything!

[J Sadowsky]

No, Jason, you're not reading "Snopes" carefully.  What the White House said is that they "are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs..."

But nobody's asking for details associated with security procedures and costs!  This is a red herring.  The White House is engaging in intentional obfuscation here.  Remember, this is the same people who fed us "jobs saved or created".  Inability to provide details regarding a conjunctive that nobody asked for?  Sorry, that might satisfy the 99.9% of people who don't read past the 5th paragraph and don't pay attention to detail, but it's as obvious as the flab around my waist to those who actually do pay attention:  they categorically did not say that the cost is classified; they just talked their way around it in a way to con most people into thinking it is.

So your entire argument is that because someone at the White House used an "and" instead of an "or" in a way anyone fluent in English would understand to mean "or," the costs are consequently not classified?  Then why don't you FOIA it?

[Phil McDade]

Dave:

Isn't there some tavern in the Loop that needs your urgent attention? I mean, it's darn near closing in on 4 pm in these parts.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Boehner must play in a lot of scrambles.

[J Sadowsky]

So your entire argument is that because someone at the White House used an "and" instead of an "or" in a way anyone fluent in English would understand to mean "or," the costs are consequently not classified?  Then why don't you FOIA it?

No, that's not what I said.  0-fer-2, and I'm reasonably fluent in English.  

What I said was that the weasel words speaking to details regarding this conjunctive make it unclear, but imply that they are, and that the White House sure did their darndest to confuse the world into believing that they are.   The White House is also quite fluent in English (hence, the "jobs saved OR created").   They know the difference.  The insertion of the false-request for "details" and the use of the conjunctive was absolutely not an accident.  Rather, it was a smokescreen.

Maybe I am not fluent in English, because it seems like we're saying the same thing.  If so, what you are saying is nuts.  The White House (intentionally) used the disjunctive to hide non-classified information from the public because of a report that is facially wrong?  Why would they do that?  And if they did, why don't you just FOIA the information you are so sure they are hiding-by-grammar?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()