Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Aging Out" Fans...

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts







  • Quote Originally Posted by guido61
    View Post

    Wanna point out what "trillions" Obama has spent or even signed off on? You do know that Congress writes the checks, don't you?




    Well, here's Obama signing the $831 billion (close enough to a trillion) "stimulus bill" - the first of many documented things Obama has done to spend lots of extra money.







    According to this "top aides to President-Elect Obama held multiple meetings with committee leaders and staffers" to write the legislation.



    So I have to agree with TIMKEYS that, yes, it was Obama's bill (though you could argue that he never bothered to read what his own staffers wrote I suppose).



    (My guess is that you didn't bother to look up what the bill did or how it was enacted before making your comment.)



    Around my house what they proudly did with this money (proclaiming it on signs along the way) was to take a stretch of concrete highway about 15 miles long and, for every 20 foot concrete section, they cut out the joint between the sections and inserted a new 5 foot section (concrete highways here tend to crack during freeze/thaw).



    The trick here was this doubled the number of joints, which need constant maintenance, from say 8,000 to 16,000.



    The obvious fix was to just asphalt over it like virtually every other highway in our area is made. But why do that when we can generate mindless work for our supporters...
    Just-Got-Lucky
    ----------------
    My blogs: http://lwgat.blogspot.com/
    My Music: http://www.fall-to-earth.com

    Comment








    • Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
      View Post

      Well, here's Obama signing the $831 billion (close enough to a trillion) "stimulus bill" - the first of many documented things Obama has done to spend lots of extra money.







      According to this "top aides to President-Elect Obama held multiple meetings with committee leaders and staffers" to write the legislation.



      So I have to agree with TIMKEYS that, yes, it was Obama's bill (though you could argue that he never bothered to read what his own staffers wrote I suppose).



      (My guess is that you didn't bother to look up what the bill did or how it was enacted before making your comment.)



      Around my house what they proudly did with this money (proclaiming it on signs along the way) was to take a stretch of concrete highway about 15 miles long and, for every 20 foot concrete section, they cut out the joint between the sections and inserted a new 5 foot section (concrete highways here tend to crack during freeze/thaw).



      The trick here was this doubled the number of joints, which need constant maintenance, from say 8,000 to 16,000.



      The obvious fix was to just asphalt over it like virtually every other highway in our area is made. But why do that when we can generate mindless work for our supporters...




      That would not have made it to his desk for signature without the Republican controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate having voted for it first. I.e. that Bill required a lot of Republican support as well as Ds.

      Comment








      • Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
        View Post

        Well, here's Obama signing the $831 billion (close enough to a trillion) "stimulus bill" -.




        And that was pretty much the bulk of all his spending since taking office. The rest of the "trillions" is mostly stuff that was pre-authorized long ago.












        the first of many documented things Obama has done to spend lots of extra money



        Such as?










        (My guess is that you didn't bother to look up what the bill did or how it was enacted before making your comment.)



        You'd be wrong. But if you understood the bill, then you'd know that over 1/3rd of it was spent on tax cuts.








        Around my house what they proudly did with this money (proclaiming it on signs along the way) was to take a stretch of concrete highway about 15 miles long and, for every 20 foot concrete section, they cut out the joint between the sections and inserted a new 5 foot section (concrete highways here tend to crack during freeze/thaw).



        Around here we got several much needed re-pavings and highway constructions. Which is cool. I drive a LOT with my job. And with the band. I like good roads.
        _________________________________________________
        band websites:
        http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
        https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
        https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
        http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

        Comment


        • All the quibbling about how much money was/has been spent at the responsibility of Obama, the House, Congress, m Aunt Mabel is irrelevant.



          Unless I missed someone else doing so previously, the finger of blame on that is being ascribed is being attached to SOMEONE being responsible for putting the US into and/or prolonging the recession.



          The simple fact is that the US is not currently in, nor has it been in for at least the entirety of the Obama administration, a recession. If one believes the US is/has been, they may want to check themselves...



          There's been a hell of a lot of "I know Econ better than you" dick-swinging in this thread, but the reality is that the individual who seems to be the most vocal in that regard should probably revisit that Econ 101 textbook they clearly ignored previously...

          Hasn't been a recession, period: the Economic environment that constitutes a recession were not present, and have not happened.



          We were CLOSE TO a recession at the worst of things late '08/early '09, but never actually entered into one. Throwing out the word recession as has been done is just ignorant and knee-jerk...



          Of course, I guess that shouldn't surprise.
          For cripe's sake, somebody buy that kid a freaking DICTIONARY already!

          Comment








          • Quote Originally Posted by kmart
            View Post

            We were CLOSE TO a recession at the worst of things late '08/early '09, but never actually entered into one. Throwing out the word recession as has been done is just ignorant and knee-jerk...



            Of course, I guess that shouldn't surprise.




            The word "recession" has a couple of different meanings. One is the technical economic term which is defined by 2 or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Which we had from Dec 2007 to June 2009--the period that the National Bureau of Economic Research defines as the period of the "Great Recession".



            The other is a more broad term that people use to define a sluggish economy and high unemployment. Under which we are still suffering.
            _________________________________________________
            band websites:
            http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
            https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
            https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
            http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

            Comment


            • 1) The time period is subject to interpretation, basically dependent on which school of Economic thought one follows. But 6 months is fair enough IMO. But we didn't see economic decline for that period. Not straight through. There was actually an uptick at the end of first quarter '09, IIRC. To the letter of the definition, a recession did not happen. I was neck deep in tracking things daily at that point for my day job. I remember discussing it at great length at the time, I remember leveraging a fair number of industry and general economic analysts at the time. The unanimous opinion was the US was certainly skirting a recession, but had technically not entered into one.



              I suppose if one wishes to look at things a bit more greyscale than black/white, then yes, one could make the case that there was a brief period where we were in a recession. But certainly not for a prolonged period no matter how one slices it, and certainly not still the case at this point.



              2) But even more pertinent to the discussion at hand is the overall CURRENT economic scenario. And it sure as hell isn't a recession, or frankly, even recession-like. Some of the folks in this thread who want to blame everything possible on Obama are just lazy in thought/word.
              For cripe's sake, somebody buy that kid a freaking DICTIONARY already!

              Comment


              • You people are the worst. The ones I agree with included. Could there be ONE thread here where no one takes the bait?
                Jukejoint Handmedowns (my band)

                Find our album on iTunes!

                A Month of Songs (Songwriting blog)







                Originally Posted by gennation


                Neither of us is gay or anything, it just happened.

                Comment








                • Quote Originally Posted by kmart
                  View Post

                  1) The time period is subject to interpretation, basically dependent on which school of Economic thought one follows.




                  Not really. 2 consecutive quarters has been the accepted, standard time period for defining a recession for decades.








                  But 6 months is fair enough IMO. But we didn't see economic decline for that period. Not straight through. There was actually an uptick at the end of first quarter '09, IIRC. To the letter of the definition, a recession did not happen. I was neck deep in tracking things daily at that point for my day job. I remember discussing it at great length at the time, I remember leveraging a fair number of industry and general economic analysts at the time. The unanimous opinion was the US was certainly skirting a recession, but had technically not entered into one.



                  Incorrect. Not only is such an opinion far from "unanimous", I really don't know of ANYONE who holds it. Again, the definition is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. That doesn't mean there can't be any growth on any particular day or week, or any "upticks", but what happened from the end of one quarter to the next. And quarters, of course, have definative start and end times as well.








                  2) But even more pertinent to the discussion at hand is the overall CURRENT economic scenario. And it sure as hell isn't a recession, or frankly, even recession-like.



                  Less so every day, but the biggesst problem withthe current economic scenario is the overall fragility of it. Nobody is saying we're still IN a recession, just that they fear we could easily slide back into one. And that it still FEELS like a recession for a lot of people and some economic sectors. To put it another way, if you're one of the many people who have been unemployed or underemployed for months, you probably don't really give a **************** if we're "officially" in recession or not.








                  Some of the folks in this thread who want to blame everything possible on Obama are just lazy in thought/word.



                  THAT'S undoubtedly true.
                  _________________________________________________
                  band websites:
                  http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
                  https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
                  https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
                  http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

                  Comment








                  • Quote Originally Posted by Chicken Monkey
                    View Post

                    You people are the worst. The ones I agree with included. Could there be ONE thread here where no one takes the bait?




                    Then it wouldn't really be a "thread" now would it....
                    _________________________________________________
                    band websites:
                    http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
                    https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
                    https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
                    http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

                    Comment


                    • I still listen to iron Maiden...





                      just sayin' MAIDEN RULES!!!!
                      www.ostrichhat.com

                      Comment








                      • Quote Originally Posted by Chicken Monkey
                        View Post

                        You people are the worst. The ones I agree with included. Could there be ONE thread here where no one takes the bait?




                        Well then what the hell fun would that be?

                        Comment


                        • Back to the OP, what I'm seeing is that people age out and then age back in when they become empty nesters. I used to play at the Eager Beaver in Covington Washington for "Taco Thursdays". There would be no fewer than 300 motorcycles parked there at any one time during the afternoon/evening. And that was on Thursdays. They were mostly RUB's (Rich Urban Bikers).



                          Now that I am in Kentucky (motorcyclist's paradise, btw.) I see the same thing. There is definitely a contingent of people that have opted back in as they aged. Those lamenting the demise of the "80's classics" may take heart. As their contemporaries see their kids off to college, etc. and are able to get their own Harley or convertible, some will return.
                          "If there is anything that links the human to the divine, it is the courage to stand by a principle when everybody else rejects it." -- Abraham Lincoln

                          Comment








                          • Quote Originally Posted by guido61
                            View Post

                            ...



                            Such as?




                            The details are here, here and, most importantly here.



                            The fact is that without a budget Obama's government has upped annual spending and the corresponding deficits (he does sign each spending bill). Deficits now run about 9-10% of GDP (last column, most important link) as compared to maybe 3-4% for all other presidents.



                            10% - 3% = 7% of a trillion dollar deficit that is new since Obama took office.



                            Or about another $700 billion a year for four years (take away one for Bush in 2009) and you are looking at "trillions of dollars" as TIMKEYS said.



                            Its simply not reported as simple income and outflow. The blog and WSJ provide more details but tell the exact same story.



                            All the matters is total inflow minus total outflow (regardless of actual receipts or credits, i.e., Obama offering credits when he cannot afford to is no different that a lower tax rate).



                            People see these numbers and simply pretend they either don't exist or are wrong.



                            Neither is the case.



                            Expect things to "go back to the OP"...
                            Just-Got-Lucky
                            ----------------
                            My blogs: http://lwgat.blogspot.com/
                            My Music: http://www.fall-to-earth.com

                            Comment








                            • Quote Originally Posted by toddkuen
                              View Post

                              The details are here, here and, most importantly here.




                              Yeah, those all make my point. Obama doesn't write the checks. He doesn't hold the checkbook.








                              The fact is that without a budget Obama's government has upped annual spending and the corresponding deficits. Deficits now run about 9-10% of GDP (last column, most important link) as compared to maybe 3-4% for all other presidents.



                              Again, not his spending. spending bills all originate in the House. I don't even see anything much there that he approved, let alone initiated.



                              Look, nobody is claiming that Obama is any sort of a deficit hawk. But nothing is served by repeating silly partisan rhetoric designed to mis-direct blame, either. The truth is that the current makeup of the House and Senate has pretty much assured that very little in the way of legislation even makes it to the President's desk. Some people LIKE the idea of a government that does nothing, but the truth is that only results in previous problems continuing and getting bigger.








                              10% - 3% = 7% of a trillion dollar deficit that is new since Obama took office.



                              Or about another $700 billion a year for four years (take away one for Bush in 2009) and you are looking at "trillions of dollars" as TIMKEYS said.



                              That's not how it works. Unless you somehow expected Obama to have been able to immediately end the wars, close down the Dept of Homeland Security, and end all other unfunded spending that was initiated prior to him taking office that continues year after year, to view the increases to the deficit that such programs continue to accrue as "his spending" is absurd. He wouldn't have the power to do that even if he wanted to and even if doing such things were in any way practical or adviseable.
                              _________________________________________________
                              band websites:
                              http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
                              https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
                              https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
                              http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

                              Comment


                              • Obama signs each spending appropriation and has the power of veto - so it's a bogus argument that its all the fault of Congress.



                                And you obviously didn't look at the links - Obama is spending 7% MORE than Bush and his predecessors - but you don't ask on what.



                                In fact, the "war" in Iraq is largely over but magically there is no savings - ask yourself why. Bush, in fact, ran up a much lower deficit. 30% of Obama, while running the war. Yet Obama spends 200% more than Bush with the war over.



                                Obama's success depends on people not looking into the details of what he does and dismissing disagreement with the cry of "partisanship."



                                Never question authority...

                                Take some time to understand the underlying facts.
                                Just-Got-Lucky
                                ----------------
                                My blogs: http://lwgat.blogspot.com/
                                My Music: http://www.fall-to-earth.com

                                Comment



                                Working...
                                X