"Aging Out" Fans...

[kmart]

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.

[Chicken Monkey]

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

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by kmart

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 {censored} 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.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by Chicken Monkey

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....

[jeff42]

I still listen to iron Maiden...

just sayin' MAIDEN RULES!!!!

[jimiv]

 

Originally Posted by Chicken Monkey

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?

[RobRoy]

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.

[toddkuen]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

...

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"...

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by toddkuen

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.

[toddkuen]

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.

[toddkuen]

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...

[RobRoy]

So, has Obama aged out? Is that why he's being discussed here? Could you guys take this to PP please.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by toddkuen

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.

 

You aren't understanding how it works. The reason spending increases year after year is there are automatic increases built into the programs. If congress does nothing, then spending goes up every year. There's been no budgets that have gotten to his desk except to continue what has already existed. He could veto those, I suppose, but it wouldn't change anything. The money would still get spent.

 

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.

 

Bush ran up a lower deficit largely because revenues were higher. But the last year he was in office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. It hasn't changed much since then. The reason there's not been any war savings? Technically because the money has been shifted to the war in Afghanistan (they don't keep separate books on both war efforts.) More truthfully, because there's huge money being made off these wars. Suggestions to reduce defense spending are always met with cries that it will reduce jobs and hurt the economy. I'm sure it will. At least if you work for Lockheed Martin or some such, anyway.

Look--you wanna go down the conspiracy route? Here's what you do: follow the money. We have $16 trillion in debt. $16 trillion that was borrowed from certain entities to spend on certain things. Where did that money go? Who has it? Whose wealth has increased as a result of it?

Defense spending? The soliders don't have it. They barely earn enough to survive. What they make goes in one hand and out the other. Food stamps? The recipients have no greater wealth. Again, in one hand an out the other. But try to reduce the food stamp program and see how quickly and loudly big Ag and the supermarket chains cry and moan. End food stamps and the people will either find food elsewhere or starve, but that might suck, but isn't really going to affect the GDP or anything much. Where that gets affected is in the profit margins of the REAL beneficiaries of those programs. They LIKE all that debt because they are ones who see the increases in their wealth without having to pay the taxes to fund it.

Wanna know why so many more people are on food stamps? Look at the fact that the minimum wage would need to be about $10.50 an hour to match what is was in 1970. What's happened is the taxpayers---again largely with borrowed money--are subsidizing those lower wages. Might not be so bad if those same businesses not paying liveable wages were taxed to pay for the food stamps, but it's not working that way. We're borrowing the money.

Which, is paid back with interest. Follow that money as well. People are profitting from loaning the US money with which to subsidize these programs rather than being taxed to pay for them. Pretty good deal. For them. You think THOSE people care about the deficit and the debt? But no. We can't tax THEM to pay for this stuff...why...that would hurt the economy...

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by toddkuen

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

 

Because when you start hearing nonsense like "Obama's out of control spending" and "we need to take away Obama's checkbook", it's very easy to see who understands what is actually going on and who is just playing politics.

Bush, Hastert, Frist, Boehner, McConnell and all the rest have just as much responsibility to bear for the problems as do Obama, Reid or Pelosi, if not more. Until people are able to understand at least THIS much, we're never likely to get anywhere.

[TIMKEYS]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Because when you start hearing nonsense like "Obama's out of control spending" and "we need to take away Obama's checkbook", it's very easy to see who understands what is actually going on and who is just playing politics.

Bush, Hastert, Frist, Boehner, McConnell and all the rest have just as much responsibility to bear for the problems as do Obama, Reid or Pelosi, if not more. Until people are able to understand at least THIS much, we're never likely to get anywhere.

 

Not really ,,obama controls the senate and he has the veto pen. Obama didnt do anything but raise taxes. He has not given any signals that he is going to slow down on spending.

[toddkuen]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

You aren't understanding how it works.

 

No, I understand exactly how it works. The table I linked to is quite clear on what's happening.

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Bush ran up a lower deficit largely because revenues were higher.

 

False, under Obama revenue is quite similar to that under Bush (proof here).

 

Originally Posted by guido61

But the last year he was in office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. It hasn't changed much since then.

 

Why not? Interesting that you mention this but offer no reason... Bush's last year was TARP.

Without that out year of spending in the picture Obama is still spending trillions.

 

Originally Posted by guido61

The reason there's not been any war savings? Technically because the money has been shifted to the war in Afghanistan (they don't keep separate books on both war efforts.) More truthfully, because there's huge money being made off these wars. Suggestions to reduce defense spending are always met with cries that it will reduce jobs and hurt the economy. I'm sure it will. At least if you work for Lockheed Martin or some such, anyway.

 

2013 US Federal Budget (estimated): Healthcare: 22% SS: 22% Defense: 24%

As I said, "big medicine" rules defense in terms of spending - and it will only go up as more geezers retire.

And Obama has borrowed a trillion or two with short term notes at 1% - the refinancing will at a rational interest rate of even 4-5% will create an interest expense bigger than Defense or SS or health care.

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Look--you wanna go down the conspiracy route?

 

No. I am not mentioning conspiracy.

These figures and my comments are based on US Government Accounting results and documents - please check and read them for yourself.

Not conspiracy.

You seem to be the one making up your own facts here all the way across the board.

Seems to me the "conspiracy" is one of a practiced ignorance of facts, facts the government produces about its own spending.

[Piano Whore]

How about "age-ing out" political discussions? They never turn out well.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

Obama didnt do anything but raise taxes.

 

Well, he cut taxes a bunch of times prior to last week.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by toddkuen

False, under Obama revenue is quite similar to that under Bush (proof here).

 

Not at all. Look at the numbers: 2008 receipts: 2.5 trillion. 2010 receipts: 2.1 trillion. That's hardly 'quite similar'. That's a decrease of nearly 20%. And after topping out in 2012, the estimates are for decreasing deficits. But that's still not relevant to the point I was making, which is that the outlays are largely things that were put into law years --sometimes decades-- before. To call it all "Obama Spending" is simply wrong.

 

2013 US Federal Budget (estimated): Healthcare: 22% SS: 22% Defense: 24%

As I said, "big medicine" rules defense in terms of spending - and it will only go up as more geezers retire.

 

No doubt. Which is why nobody is being honest in terms of spending. The right loves to go on about the need to cut spending but never offer anything specific. Why is that? Romney offered nothing but wanting to cut PBS. Ryan's budget didn't even pretend to reach balance until 2040.

At some point people are going to have to grow up and realize that if they want certain services, they'll need to pay for them. Whether that's health care or defense or roads or the FBI or Homeland Security or whatever. This idea that everything "I" want can be essentially free as long as we cut all the "waste" that everybody else in the country wants isn't going to work any longer.

[Potts]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

Obama didnt do anything but raise taxes. He has not given any signals that he is going to slow down on spending.

No..He didn't do anything but reform health care, repeal DADT (but I'm assuming you don't support gay rights), passed Wall Street reform, saved the auto industry and about another 100 monumental things.

As far as spending? Maybe the Republicans should have taken the $3-$1 offer that was extended to them 18 months ago. You should take that up with your congressman.

[toddkuen]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Not at all. Look at the numbers: 2008 receipts: 2.5 trillion. 2010 receipts: 2.1 trillion. That's hardly 'quite similar'. That's a decrease of nearly 20%. And after topping out in 2012, the estimates are for decreasing deficits. But that's still not relevant to the point I was making, which is that the outlays are largely things that were put into law years --sometimes decades-- before. To call it all "Obama Spending" is simply wrong.

 

Look at the percentage at the left in the link I provided. Deficits run about negative 2-3% of GDP until 2009 - the year of TARP - then jump to 10% of GDP.

Meanwhile SS and Medicare/caid only grow modestly or stay flat according to the CBO:

Yet Obama magically keeps spending (by signing appropriation bills) at TARP levels.

If its not entitlements, then what is it?

 

Originally Posted by guido61

No doubt. Which is why nobody is being honest in terms of spending. The right loves to go on about the need to cut spending but never offer anything specific. Why is that? Romney offered nothing but wanting to cut PBS. Ryan's budget didn't even pretend to reach balance until 2040.

At some point people are going to have to grow up and realize that if they want certain services, they'll need to pay for them. Whether that's health care or defense or roads or the FBI or Homeland Security or whatever. This idea that everything "I" want can be essentially free as long as we cut all the "waste" that everybody else in the country wants isn't going to work any longer.

 

I agree that those who want free services "are going to have to grow up" and that "they'll need to pay for them..."

Sadly those consuming "free services" outnumber those who pay for them. I see little opportunity for change in that regard, especially since those consuming can vote.

[chemikool]

Bored on Saturday...trolling HC...

So the guys in CA and NY (huge liberal places) are arguing with the TX guys (huge republican place) and they aren't seeing eye to eye? Say it isn't so!!!

--My question for the "democratic-leaning" people = At what point do we worry about the debt, and how the debt affects our future?

--My question for the "republican-leaning" people = At what point do we acknowledge that the US has one of, if not the LOWEST tax rates in the world?

And finally, my question for all === who THE EFF do I get to be mad at for the state of our great nation? My own mother doesn't have an answer. The boomer generation has screwed it up for everyone, and they aren't taking the blame for it. I didn't vote myself into this crap. I wasn't eligible to vote until 1990, but I'll have to clean up the mess, and deal with repercussions regardless of who caused it.

Who do I get to be mad at? Don't you DARE say Dem or Rep...

Final thought to Aging out: It appears most people "age out" of being an extreme D or R and move to the middle. What is the old saying? When you're young, if you're not a democrat you have no heart. When you're old, if you're not a republican you have no brain.

This seems to apply here:

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by chemikool

--My question for the "democratic-leaning" people = At what point do we worry about the debt, and how the debt affects our future?

 

I think it probably already affects our future. It's just a question of how much and what can be done about it? I've lived long enough to understand that even being HUGELY politically involved and investing a TON of time to it makes about as much difference as the guy who knows nothing and doesn't even bother to vote. So the only thing you can really do is take care of yourself. Getting all pissed at Obama or Bush or whoever might make you feel better but it isn't really going to change anything. And, more likely, it's just going to make you angrier, less fun to be around and give you an early heart attack.

But as far as panicing about the debt goes? I dunno. Been hearing that all my life. I can remember being a very little kid and hearing stories about creating debt that "our grandchildren" will have to pay. Well, I'm now that grandchild all grown up and it's supposedly going to be the NEXT batch of grandkids that will have to pay it off. Or not....

 

Final thought to Aging out: It appears most people "age out" of being an extreme D or R and move to the middle.

 

I've always thought it the opposite. Most people start out rather apathetic about politics and then "pick a team" and become more extreme as they age and become (at least what they believe is) more knowledgable.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Yet Obama magically keeps spending (by signing appropriation bills) at TARP levels.

 

Why is the GOP House sending Obama TARP level appropriations bills? Since when did the House and Senate agree on ANY spending bills to send to his desk? Which bills is he signing, exactly?

 

I agree that those who want free services "are going to have to grow up" and that "they'll need to pay for them..."

Sadly those consuming "free services" outnumber those who pay for them. I see little opportunity for change in that regard, especially since those consuming can vote.

 

That's an old cannard that completely misunderstands how our economy and political system works. I tried to explain it to you in an earlier post, but apparently you didn't get it. The biggest recipients, and the biggest proponents of these "free services" aren't the people who use them, but those who provide them.

Read this report on who benefits from the SNAP program. You might find it enlightening:

http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-c...MoneySimon.pdf

Recently there was a movement to prevent people from buying soft drinks with food stamps. Who do you think put an end to that? Those consuming "free services" who voted themselves some more free Pepsi?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us...food.html?_r=0

Is there REALLY a majority of voters who believe we couldn't still adequately protect our nation with much less defense spending? Who do you think it is preventing any cuts to defense?

According to this poll 76% of Americans think we should cut defense spending. When was the last time 76% of Americans agreed on ANYTHING? Yet no cuts happen or even get seriously proposed. Why is that? Because the people who want them are "voting" for them? Because those in office are afraid of being voted out over the issue?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...uts/56255016/1

Follow the money. And stop repeating nonsense about people "voting to get themselves some free stuff". That infamous 47% who doesn't pay income tax? Pretty much split down the middle between Pubs and Dems anyway.

Where Do the 47% Live?

The fact that Romney's party largely created the 47% isn't the only irony in his attacks. Perhaps more striking is the fact that an outsized percentage of the 47% live in "red states." Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of income tax nonpayers, only one -- New Mexico -- is leaning toward Obama right now. Meanwhile, of the 10 states with the lowest percentage of income tax nonpayers, only two -- North Dakota and Wyoming -- skew right.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/...no-income-tax/

[toddkuen]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Why is the GOP House sending Obama TARP level appropriations bills? Since when did the House and Senate agree on ANY spending bills to send to his desk? Which bills is he signing, exactly?

 

Ones like this from 2011 (a cool $1 trillion for "omnibus spending"). No fan fare, no one even paying attention.

What's in it? Just "cash for regular spending..." - right.

Shutdowns are ugly and no one wants that - particularly Congress.

So its spend, spend, spend...

And remember, Obama has to sign the bills, Congress only creates the spending "bill" but it cannot cause the spending to happen. (Just like Obama would love executive control of the debt limit but cannot alone.)

 

Originally Posted by guido61

That's an old cannard that completely misunderstands how our economy and political system works. I tried to explain it to you in an earlier post, but apparently you didn't get it. The biggest recipients, and the biggest proponents of these "free services" aren't the people who use them, but those who provide them.

 

Obviously "Obama phones" benefit the carriers, etc. at what I am sure special "government" rates.

I was in defense once upon a time, so of course I under stand your point about "free services" (just buy our aircraft carrier and he second one will only cost %150 more!)

But that's not the original point, is it? Folks in the "free market" have been *benefiting* from "government spending" since day one. The "benefiting" by non-government types varies in direct proportion to how much the government spends.

You're changing the argument again.

TIMKEYS started with the argument Obama is spending disproportionally more (trillions) than in the past - irrespective of "automatic increases" tied to entitlements.

With flat entitlements he's still spending at 2009 crisis levels on exactly what?