Jump to content

auctioneer69

Member
  • Content Count

    399
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by auctioneer69

  1. so you guys think things are worse than they were in Nov 08?? the TV was saying the fockign world was coming to an end then. everything was collpasing. i think things are alot better and im unemployed

     

    Sorry that you don't have a job. I think things are a lot better but still very tough.

  2. In case any one is interested. For information sake rather than to stir up trouble with anyone....

     

    How much longer can this go on? Those receiving government assistance average $300 more a year in disposable income than those who work.

     

    Report: Government Dependency Increases 23 Percent Under Obama

     

    Written by Brian Koenig

     

    American dependence on government has soared to an all-time high under the Obama administration, growing 23 percent in just two years, according to a new study by the Heritage Foundation. The conservative research group’s 2012 "Index of Dependence on Government" revealed that 67 million Americans are now banking on some federal program, including programs related to healthcare, housing, welfare, education subsidies, and other government programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

     

    The one in five Americans who now rely on federal assistance cost the government $2.5 billion annually, and the average recipient collects $32,748 in benefits, about $300 more than the country’s average disposable personal income. About 70 percent of the federal budget goes to individual assistance and nearly half of the population does not pay a dime in income taxes.

     

    "Americans should be concerned about this seemingly relentless upward march in Index scores," the study’s authors warned. "Dependence on the federal government for life’s many challenges strips civil society of its historical and necessary role in providing aid and renewal through the intimate relationships of family, community, and local institutions and local governments. While the Index does not measure the decay of civil society, it reflects a declining role in this most important aspect of society."

    The notable increase in government dependency under Obama’s presidential tenure is the largest two-year jump since the Jimmy Carter administration, and the rise was ignited largely by the efforts of the President and Congress to increase housing subsidies, grow the food stamp program, and expand Medicaid and other welfare systems.

     

    Some observers counter that the rise in government dependence under Obama is merely an aftereffect of stale economic growth. While economic stagnation does play a role, William Beach, one of the study's authors, says the analysis indicates that economic impact accounts for only one-fifth of the change in the index. Moreover, the index spiked by eight percent in 2010, a year when the economy grew by three percent.

     

    Read more:

    http://thenewamerica...ent-under-obama

     

    Wow. the number of people on public assistance go up during the worst recession since the '30's? And this is Obama's fault?

     

    YES, you are right. He only doing what all sane economists suggest. Without such a measure consumer spending which makes up 70% of the economy would have weakened even further ('cos get what? people spend their unemployment checks), unemployment would have increased even further and the economy would have gone into a deadly negative spiral with no bottom in sight.

     

    But let's suppose Ron Paul had been in power. He would have vetoed aid for the unemployed, help for the States, denied any infrastructure spending and immediately cut the numbers of people employed by the Federal Government and by the military.. And where would unemployment be? Maybe 50 - 100% higher than it is today with no hope in sight.. And even worse from his supporters' perspective, their would be little dent in the debt as tax revenues collapsed.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I think that our spending has to to come down. It's unsustainable in the medium and long term. But you don't make massive cuts when the economy is on life support. You have to let the patient heal a little before attempting surgery.

     

    Here's the frustrating thing for me. I think the bulk of Americans who don't show up on political blogs and watch Fox News - i.e.: the silent majority could sign up for the following phased in over time:

    - cuts to Medicaid and Medicare

    - changes to Social Security including changing the retirement age for people under 40 (which needs to be done anyway) and increasing the income base on which FICA taxes are levied (that support Social Security and Medicare)

    - cuts to military spending especially as we spend more on our military then the next 13 biggest countries combined

    - a reform and simplification of the tax code which makes it easier for businesses to locate within our border (this was a key part of the success of Ireland in the late '80's and 90's) and reform which means that most people are taxed less than hedge-fund managers and people who derive the bulk of their income from the sale of stock (like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates).

     

    By the way, the first three (make up 75% of Government Spending - you can't reduce the deficit seriously without touching them).

     

    Instead we are left with politicians of both parties that pander to their base. Republicans - never raise taxes on those who have benefitted disproportionately well for the last 30 years - REALLY? Democrats - keep cuts to entitlements off the table - REALLY?

     

    I think there are three other issues underpinning everyone's anxiety about the economy and future of the country.

     

    - Real wages for average Americans have stagnated since 1970's. Take away the increase of women in the workforce and the average family would be worse off than they were in 1975.

     

    - The cost of higher education. A 4 year degree and the often inevitable Masters (needed to get a decent job) that follows now costs the same as a starter house located in the Mid-West and South.

     

    -And this is is where Tea-Partiers and Occupy Wall Street agree - the growth of the corrupting influence of large corporations in decision making. Both parties have been complicit in this. Many Democratic's fav president Bill Clinton was the guy who signed into law the acts respectively that allowed Investment Banks to take too many risks (ending Glass-Stiegal) and which allowed one or 2 media companies take over the radio waves of the country. Not saying that to bash Clinton just to acknowledge the blame should be apportioned amongst all politicians.

  3. I was subdued by the muddy, overly loud sound. Not sure if it was the Paramount (I haven't been to a concert there in years) or what, but this was one of the worst sounding shows (of any band) I've seen in recent memory.

     

    To me it sounded good on the floor but definitely loud. I know what you are saying though. Thought the mix sounded less clear as the night went on.

  4. One Sunday Morning

    Poor Places

    Art of Almost

    I Might

    Bull Black Nova

    Company in My Back

    I.A.T.T.B.Y.H.

    Kamera

    Impossible Germany

    Born Alone

    Shouldn't Be Ashamed

    Not For The Season (Electric)

    The Whole Love

    Heavy Metal Drummer

    I'm The Man Who Loves You

    Standing O

    Misunderstood

    Dawned On Me

    Shot In The Arm

    --------

    Candyfloss

    War on War

    Walken

    Red Eyed and Blue

    I Got You

    Outtasite

     

    Order might be slightly off in latter part of main set but I think that's pretty close.

     

    Loud rocking show, same opening 4 songs as Vancouver, same four final songs as Vancouver. On at 9.00 and ended just after 11. Crowd pretty lame as Seattle crowds are want to be. Jeff's banter moderate and moderately funny. Thought the set flowed better than Vancouver. But crowd definitely more subdued even though the floor was standing. "Bull Black Nova" is a complimentary addition to the intensity at the start. Band just seem to get better musically. The version of "Not For The Season" was fantastic. Seemed relaxed and in particularly good spirits in the encore. Nels slayed as always. Pat's classic rock star poses endearing too. Jeff's voice was just lovely on "One Sunday Morning". Wish I was going to Portland too. Oh well...

     

    Orpheum in Vancouver and Paramount in Seattle were both built in the late 1920's and have similar layouts and great acoustics. Splitting hairs but would have loved to have heard some more slower and delicate songs. "One Sunday Morning" was a highlight in both shows. Can't help but think songs like "Sky Blue Sky", "Forget The Flowers", "In a Future Age" , "Reservations" or "One By One" would have sounded fantastic too. Maybe next time.

  5. 8th Wilco show part of a brilliant weekend in Vancouver. Up in the balcony which didn't quite have the energy of the floor. Loved the new songs live especially 'One Sunday Morning' which was gorgeous. Being selfish I would have loved to hear a couple more. Rocking encore. For me the show sagged just a tad in the middle. Probably heresy but I would have swapped any of 'I Am Trying...', 'Handshake Drugs' or 'Impossible Germany' for something played less often. 'Spiders' acoustic is dull to these ears too. Given the wonderful acoustics of the Orpheum where you can hear every note of the guitar perfectly something like 'Forget The Flowers' would have been perfect. Anyways - splitting hairs. I think the was Wilco's first indoor show here since 2007. Another great show. Onto Seattle.

  6. Thanks for sharing. Anybody get a bit of a Television vibe off this particular song? I can definitely hear parts reminiscent of "See No Evil" and "Venus De Milo".

     

    I'd love to see a more energetic band support Wilco. Looking forward to seeing White Denim in February.

  7. Did anyone see the older guy (probably around 40) nearly knock out one of the 3 drunk boys who were cutting to get up front 5 minutes before Wilco started? He backed off but I was really hoping he would have taken that kid down. Cutting = Bad Parenting.

     

    Come on, when we were younger we all did the same thing. Coming from Europe I still find American audiences strange - in Scotland it was every person for themselves. If you could push and shove without getting a slap you earned the right to be upfront.

  8. OK, I've finally heard all of the 6 "new" songs from the reissue (Blow your House Down, Heaven and Hell, Oh Berlin, Near the Island, Down all the Days, Everybody Loves a Winner) I like them all. Only wish I didn't have to shell out $125 to buy these 6 songs.

     

    Everybody Loves a Winner has some great soul to it. I'm looking for a link I can post. My favorite so far is "Down all the Days." It's nearly the same instrumental track as Numb from Zooropa. Wow.

     

    http://vimeo.com/31510343

     

    A shocking rip-off - $125 to get those six songs. Yet another example of U2, Inc. taking priority over U2 the band.

  9. I don't think their music has suffered greatly (save for the odd Crazy Tonight here and the A Man And A Woman there), but I agree with you on the touring note: they need to quit that making each tour bigger bigger bigger record-breaking bullshit.

     

     

     

    I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed an inverse relationship between Bono's hyperbolic blather prior to every new record and the quality of its contents in the last decade. I think my favourite chestnut was describing "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" as U2's "Who's Next" before it came out. U2's "Face Dances" might have been more accurate.

     

    There was a definite artistic progression with every record from "Boy" through "Pop" (maybe with the exception of "October"). Since then they've played it safe. "No Line On the Horizon" had some interesting ideas but isn't any great leap from what came before.

  10. Does anyone think U2 will pull an REM???

     

    http://www.uncut.co....ncut/news/15225

     

    I'm afraid the answer is probably no. They are my generation's Rolling Stones. Artistically they haven't been relevant (despite all the Bono-driven hyperbolic hype) for well over a decade. They only continue to exist to make hundreds of millions of dollars by touring. Nothing wrong with making so many people happy by doing that. But maybe a little more humility and perspective would be refreshing.

  11. I have had it for some time. I like you love this record. Great songs poured out of him from his eponymous solo debut through "Stanley Road".

     

    Was lucky enough to see him play at the Albert Hall in late 1993 and late 1994. Both tremendous gigs and the first one is my top five all all time. He was reveling in his return to form and the critical and public reception to "Wild Wood".

     

    If you can track it down the CD single of "Sunflower" has a stonking live version of "Bull-Rush/Magic Bus".

  12. "The Running Down A Dream" documentary might be the best music bio I have ever seen. Really interesting and devoid of all the usual cliches. When I got the netflix envelope with two DVD's totaling 4 hrs I thought I'd never get through it. It flew by.

     

    "You're Gonna Get It" is my favourite Petty album. Not an ounce of flab on any of the songs.

×
×
  • Create New...