Republican Convention Cancel The title field is required!

1. McCallum David K

   
   9/8/2012 8:09 AM

   Steve.......a small friendly wager among friends that have opposing political viewpoints. That is if you are game, if not, not a problem. I think Romney will win.....you are quite sure the Repubicans might as well sit this election out. Options for our wager........a 6-pack of a local brew mailed to the winner at losers expense......our local celebrity beer is Abita in a variety of flavors......I would defer to you in making a selection for me should somehow the Rebublicans take the White House. Second option..........a charitable donation to the charity of the winners choice made in his name...........or since you are a cook of some renown I will ship you a broad and varied selection of items to cook for your democratic friends to enjoy at the expense of a republican. Of course what I would send to you would be much better than I might hope to receive from upstate New York but what the heck.........I'm like Mikey.......I eat anything. Are we on?

   
   
   
   
2. Steven Kurta

   

   2 posts
   
   9/8/2012 9:09 AM

   We're on

   
   
   
   
3. Wahlin Scott B

   
   9/8/2012 10:09 AM

   Paul Ryan likes AC/DC to Led Zeppelin. So "Highway to Hell" is a favorite, but nothing the Rolling Stones did rates?

   
   
   
   
4. McCallum David K

   
   9/9/2012 6:09 AM

   Steve...good we can dicide what the wager is within the next 60 days..plenty of time to savor the thought of victory, lol. Scott now you find fault with Ryan because you and he do not share the same taste in music? Now that truly is extreme.....but what the heck if you were a vanilla type guy we would have never have spoken. The dem's were playing "my type of music" the other night.........lots of 60's and early 70's R&B........thought I had turned on Soul Train.

   
   
   
   
5. Keith Lamb

   

   3 posts
   
   9/9/2012 7:09 AM

   "If you were to hazard a guess at what kind of music might be on Paul Ryan's iPod, it would probably be things like Toby Keith, Kid Rock, Counting Crows, right?
   
   And though it's possible he does dig those all-American acts, the man tapped by Gov. Mitt Romney to be his vice-presidential running mate has one band in heavy rotation that might raise some eyebrows: Rage Against the Machine."
   
   Continued below
   
   http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1691687/paul-ryan-rage-against-the-machine.jhtml?xrs=share_copy

   
   
   
   
6. Wahlin Scott B

   
   9/9/2012 9:09 AM

   [This post has been removed due an extreme lack of tact.]

   
   
   
   
7. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   9/9/2012 9:09 PM

   [This post has been removed in conjunction with GCSAA's forum policy.]

   
   
   
   
8. McCallum David K

   
   9/10/2012 8:09 AM

   Like I said the guy is kind of extreme........he does everything wide open........most times without his brain engaged. With him though the forum would be very .....uhh......hmmm..... different. That's the best I can come up with.

   
   
   
   
9. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   9/10/2012 8:09 AM

   Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: If you plan to vote for Romney and you are not a billionaire, a racist or an idiot, what is your motivation?

   
   
   A liitle lighter version of what was removed above......
   
   Scott, I can't believe you asked the question in such a way. Well, yes I can. It came from your fingertips.
   
   My new-found motivation is to hear you scream and cry like a two and a half year old on the morning of Wednesday November 7th, and then every day thereafter for four years. You'll be almost seven then.

   
   
   
   
10. Wahlin Scott B

    
    9/10/2012 9:09 AM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said: Scott, I can't believe you asked the question in such a way.

    
    
    Yeah, that was extreme. I apologize (once again) to the group.

    
    
    
    
11. Albert Kronwall

    

    0 posts
    
    9/10/2012 9:09 AM

    Scott
    
    The simple answer to your question is we need someone in control that understands that you cannot spend more money than you have. Romney, being a successful business man, understands that logic.

    
    
    
    
12. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    9/10/2012 11:09 AM

    Albert Kronwall said: Scott
    
    The simple answer to your question is we need someone in control that understands that you cannot spend more money than you have. Romney, being a successful business man, understands that logic.

    
    
    Andy, First problem is Congress is just as involved as the president, I think there are some successful businessmen in there too, and they haven't been able to agree on things either, heck just look at the Republicans themselves can't come to agreements as a group.
    
    I think we (well not maybe you or me but the group) have had this discussion before, but what is your definition of successful business man? Making as much money for himself? He has had just as many failures such as the steel firm in KC, as success, SDI in Indiana, well I guess he takes credit when really all he did was invest money into the business, that ownership group, along with their employees really made it happen. Romney has invested in Staples and Sports Authority, which I'm guessing created a lot of minimum wage jobs, while not investing in manufacturing factories that Bain took control of and where are those high paying jobs? Probably China. President Obama did some similar things, I know the first thing you guys will jump on is Solyndra, but he also invested in infrastructure projects like highways and bridges that put people to work. (I know there is a ton of it going on around our town).
    
    Anyone see Gov. Romney on "Meet the Press"? On his answer to how he was going to balance the budget he didn't offer up much in the way of specifics. He talked more about increasing defense spending....so Andy, he wants to spend more money then we have, and the way he was going to raise revenue was spotty too. He talked about taking away the tax "loop holes" for higher income people like himself, (which I was kind of glad to hear because we use so many of those ourselves, like the mortgage interests deduction and medical expenses deduction, well I hope we get to use it, I don't know what his definition of higher income is). I guess until I see the numbers and specifics can I really trust him not to spend money we don't have? Even the Ryan budget plan I believe doesn't balance the budget until 2040, I think the plan the president has put forth will balance it sooner. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that is what I remember hearing.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
13. McCallum David K

    
    9/10/2012 12:09 PM

    One thing about you Mel is you never let a comment pass without a rebuttal....right or wrong.

    
    
    
    
14. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    9/10/2012 12:09 PM

    David McCallum said: One thing about you Mel is you never let a comment pass without a rebuttal....right or wrong.

    
    
    Thanks for agreeing with me David that Andy's comment is wrong......and as my rebuttal points out.... Just like I will correct when Florida State wins it all.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
15. Albert Kronwall

    

    0 posts
    
    9/10/2012 4:09 PM

    Mel….Mel…Mel
    
    Obama's first two years he had a super majority, Democratic Senate, House, and Presidency. The republicans could not stop a thing ex: Obamacare. Obama has managed to get away with Czars and presidential executive orders in order to circumvent the process that was intended by our founding fathers, so he has made congress irrelevant. Brilliant on his part but un-American in my opinion. Republicans debate the issues and majority rules. Did you see the voting process the Dems had during the DNC? I think it was very telling on how the majority voted one way but the votes were deemed passed in the opposite of the majority.
    
    The big difference in Romney's investments and Obama's is Romney is taking a gamble with his money; Obama is gambling with our money. Obama has "no skin in the gam" as he likes to say. True Romney has had some bad investments but he has also had some very successful ones as you pointed out Staples and Sports Authority. Do you think those successful companies don't have upper and middle management positions? Do you think that even the minimum wage employees don't feel better about themselves because they are trying to achieve a better place in society? Those employees are supporting their families instead of collecting a welfare check. I have a lot more respect for people that are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families than I do for the people that just think government owes them everything.
    
    Did you ever think about those executives at Staples and Sports Authority that build a nice home for their family? He will employ excavation contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, dry wallers, etc. Those contractors purchase fixtures, lumber, carpet, etc., all made by people that are working in factories, sawmills, etc. All of those people are employed because there are some people that can afford to build a house. Because they are working they are paying taxes, which increases the government income instead of a society collecting government handouts and sending us further into debt.
    
    My point is Romney has spent his life helping people improve their position in life and Obama has spent his life getting people on the government payroll or welfare or some other government assistance.
    
    Ryan's budget is projected to balance in early to mid-2020's. Obama's budget did not receive one single vote in the house or senate and the senate hasn't passed a budget in over three years.

    
    
    
    
16. James Schmid

    

    1 posts
    
    9/11/2012 8:09 AM

    Albert Kronwall said: Mel….Mel…Mel
    
    Obama's first two years he had a super majority, Democratic Senate, House, and Presidency. The republicans could not stop a thing ex: Obamacare. Obama has managed to get away with Czars and presidential executive orders in order to circumvent the process that was intended by our founding fathers, so he has made congress irrelevant. Congress did a fine job of making themselves irrelevant all by themselves, they didn't need Obama to do that. They are free to pass all of the legislation they want, they just don't. Brilliant on his part but un-American in my opinion. Republicans debate the issues and majority rules. Did you see the voting process the Dems had during the DNC? I think it was very telling on how the majority voted one way but the votes were deemed passed in the opposite of the majority.
    
    The big difference in Romney's investments and Obama's is Romney is taking a gamble with his money; Obama is gambling with our money. Obama has "no skin in the gam" as he likes to say. True Romney has had some bad investments but he has also had some very successful ones as you pointed out Staples and Sports Authority. Do you think those successful companies don't have upper and middle management positions? Do you think that even the minimum wage employees don't feel better about themselves because they are trying to achieve a better place in society? Those employees are supporting their families instead of collecting a welfare check. I have a lot more respect for people that are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families than I do for the people that just think government owes them everything.
    
    Did you ever think about those executives at Staples and Sports Authority that build a nice home for their family? He will employ excavation contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, dry wallers, etc. Those contractors purchase fixtures, lumber, carpet, etc., all made by people that are working in factories, sawmills, etc. All of those people are employed because there are some people that can afford to build a house. Because they are working they are paying taxes, which increases the government income instead of a society collecting government handouts and sending us further into debt.
    
    My point is Romney has spent his life helping people improve their position in life and Obama has spent his life getting people on the government payroll or welfare or some other government assistance. Not to be rude, but this statement is absurd. Romney has worked to help himself - thats what capitalism is and it's fine. What he hasn't spent his life doing is helping other people. What you are suggesting is beyond a stretch, it's ridiculous.
    
    Ryan's budget is projected to balance in early to mid-2020's. Obama's budget did not receive one single vote in the house or senate and the senate hasn't passed a budget in over three years.

    
    
    
    
17. Albert Kronwall

    

    0 posts
    
    9/11/2012 9:09 AM

    James Schmid said:

    Albert Kronwall said: Mel….Mel…Mel
    
    . Congress did a fine job of making themselves irrelevant all by themselves, they didn't need Obama to do that. They are free to pass all of the legislation they want, they just don't.
    
    FYI: The Republican run house has passed more than 25 Jobs-Bills which are now stuck and going nowhere in the Democratic run senate.
    The house has also passed a budget every year, which is required by law. The senate has ignored the laws failing to even propose a budget for the last three years.
    
    Now tell me again who has failed to do their job!
    
    Not to be rude, but this statement is absurd. Romney has worked to help himself - thats what capitalism is and it's fine. What he hasn't spent his life doing is helping other people. What you are suggesting is beyond a stretch, it's ridiculous.
    
    So you are saying that all of the businesses that Romney has created or saved have not helped anyone other than himself?
    So are you also saying that no one benifited from the 2002 Olympics that he saved from corruption?

    
    
    
    
18. McCallum David K

    
    9/11/2012 10:09 AM

    Mel, Mel Mel..........wrong forum but you brought it up...........FSU WILL NOT WIN IT ALL! Now they actually have to play their first opponent of the year and not sure how good Wake is but that have to be better than the two high school teams they opened with. Not only will they not will it all, they won't even play in the GAME!

    
    
    
    
19. James Schmid

    

    1 posts
    
    9/11/2012 11:09 AM

    . Congress did a fine job of making themselves irrelevant all by themselves, they didn't need Obama to do that. They are free to pass all of the legislation they want, they just don't.
    
    FYI: The Republican run house has passed more than 25 Jobs-Bills which are now stuck and going nowhere in the Democratic run senate.
    The house has also passed a budget every year, which is required by law. The senate has ignored the laws failing to even propose a budget for the last three years.
    
    Now tell me again who has failed to do their job!
    
    I just did. Congress is generally the term used to refer to the house of representatives and the senate. By most reasonable accounts Congress has accomplished very little in recent years. So here you go again - congress has failed to do their jobs. A miniority of legislators producing a bunch of bills with the knowledge that they will not be passed by other members of congress is not what I would call a job well done. If you think about this it is true, it's not my opinion, it is what happened.
    
    There are Democrats in congress for the same reason that there are republicans in congress, because their constituients elected them, because they felt that of the limited choices available that that person would best represent their interests. These people were elected to lead and govern and lead our country. The only thing they have led us to is bitter bi-partsianship, and a lack of production. They as a group have failed. Thats what I said. They have all failed.

    
    
    
    
20. Wahlin Scott B

    
    9/11/2012 1:09 PM

    Albert Kronwall said: Mel….Mel…Mel
    
    Obama's first two years he had a super majority, Democratic Senate, House, and Presidency.

    
    
    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html

    
    
    
    
21. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    9/11/2012 9:09 PM

    Albert Kronwall said: Mel….Mel…Mel
    
    Ryan's budget is projected to balance in early to mid-2020's. Obama's budget did not receive one single vote in the house or senate and the senate hasn't passed a budget in over three years.

    
    
    Andy,
    
    Since there was no way the republicans would have voted yes on a budget presented by the President, the democrats for political reasons, (which in a way ticks me off because they didn't stand up for principals, but hey both sides do that) did not vote for it either. That's the way I have understood those votes. The president did present budgets. I can agree that the Senate isn't working either but a lot of that problem in my opinion is the fact that anything the democrates propose will get fillibustered. Neither side working for the common good of the country.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
22. Albert Kronwall

    

    0 posts
    
    9/12/2012 11:09 AM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:

    Albert Kronwall said: Mel….Mel…Mel
    
    Ryan's budget is projected to balance in early to mid-2020's. Obama's budget did not receive one single vote in the house or senate and the senate hasn't passed a budget in over three years.

    
    
    Andy,
    
    Since there was no way the republicans would have voted yes on a budget presented by the President, the democrats for political reasons, Could it be they know they can't win re-election having voted for a budget of higher taxes, uncontrolled spending, and increasing the national debt?(which in a way ticks me off because they didn't stand up for principals, but hey both sides do that) did not vote for it either. That's the way I have understood those votes. The president did present budgets. I can agree that the Senate isn't working either but a lot of that problem in my opinion is the fact that aanythinge democrates propose will get fillibustered.We don't know that for sure because the senate didn't even make an attempt Neither side working for the common good of the country.I have to respectfully disagree. The House fulfilled their constitutional obligation, not knowing what the final outcome would be is irrelivent. The House is at least trying to get something on the table to start negotiating with. It is their job and if they are not doing their job they should be replaced with representitives of the people that will do the job they were elected to do. They are paid better than most and have benefits we would all love to have, but they should at least make an attempt to get to the table. In my opinion not even making an effort is a derilection of duty
    
    Mel

    
    
    
    
23. McCallum David K

    
    9/12/2012 2:09 PM

    And to throw a little more gas on the fire that is almost out of control effective January 2013 should you decide to sell your home the federal government, yes the federal government will tack on a 3.8 % tax. Sell your $250,000 ( you filty rich Republican) home and cut a check to the feds for $ 9500. That is your money, your profit, not the sales agent's commission....well it used to be anyway. You didn't build it anyway so why should you profit from it, right?
    
    That's why the good speaker said you must pass Obamacare to find out whats in it........you soon will.

    
    
    
    
24. Wahlin Scott B

    
    9/12/2012 4:09 PM

    The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won't apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

    
    
    
    
25. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    9/12/2012 4:09 PM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won't apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

    
    
    And that good news has everything to do with health care, obviuosly.

    
    
    
    
26. Wahlin Scott B

    
    9/12/2012 8:09 PM

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said:

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won't apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

    
    
    And that good news has everything to do with health care, obviously!!!

    
    
    I never understand what this comment means.

    
    
    
    
27. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    9/12/2012 8:09 PM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said:

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won't apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

    
    
    And that good news has everything to do with health care, obviously!!!

    
    
    I never understand what this comment means.

    
    
    I'll wait for others to chime in on their understanding, or lack thereof.

    
    
    
    
28. James Geiger

    

    1 posts
    
    9/13/2012 5:09 AM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    Peter Bowman, CGCS said:

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won't apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

    
    
    And that good news has everything to do with health care, obviously!!!

    
    
    I never understand what this comment means.

    
    
    Quite simply what does a tax on the sale of your home have to do with Healthcare? Nothing, it should be a separate issue and voted on separately! But i'm sure you knew that and were just busting his b!!!s

    
    
    
    
29. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    9/13/2012 7:09 AM

    â– A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
    â– An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.
    
    Tax added from Obama Care. Will it effect everyone? No. Is it right? Just another example of taking and distributing the wealth from the evil haves.

    
    
    
    
30. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    9/13/2012 8:09 AM

    Jon Gansen said: â– A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
    â– An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.
    
    Tax added from Obama Care. Will it effect everyone? No. Is it right? Just another example of taking and distributing the wealth from the evil haves.

    
    
    Jon, an excellent example of how that tax works, of course my feelings would be (but I'm just guessing since I don't see myself ever in that position since I don't play the lottery) the added tax for the healthcare isn't really very much, you don't list the capital gains tax for the first example, but in the second one, I would be more ticked with the $100,000 tax on the gains, not the $3,800. I would be looking for and with that kind of money I could probably afford to put some of it in to an account that doesn't get taxed or is tax deferred. They have those things don't they?
    
    As far as taxes in general, we can't keep cutting them in my opinion when the cost of things continue to go up. I understand there could be some spending issues that should be looked at as well, but it seems to me since we have gone to this tax cutting mode that has occured that seems to be when the country itself takes a down turn. I know there are many other things that would factor into the economy but that is what I see and my opinion. Let's really sit down and look at the math of things and decide what we want and we don't need. I would also suggest, and I know the middle class (what's left of them) wouldn't be happy but if need be, let us all pay the tax on a capital gain as well, along with the health care tax. Then it's fair to all.
    
    I did hear something the other day about one of these weathy people Addleson I believe that was giving $100,000 to help elect Gov. Romney, when they figured out what he would save in taxes if the Romney/Ryan tax plans were put into place, he would be saving millions, that is when I truly realized why these people spend all this money on campagns, I always wondered why they would pump all that money in to them. That is the only reason I would call them evil haves, why not give to something that could really use the money or save it for the kids?
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO