Inflation
clams_casino
(3/$2). In another store, their suet was $1.25 per package vs. $1 last
year (more visible seeds / berries).
50 lbs of sunflower seeds that cost me $15 two years ago and $22 last
fall was $25 yesterday.
Granted, it's still cheap entertainment, but 14-25% annual inflation?
Gene S. Berkowitz
PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com says...
How do you think those 50 lbs of seed got to the store?
Some trucker had to burn $4/gallon diesel fuel to haul it there,
when last year he only had to pay $3/gallon.
--Gene
clams_casino
Actually, they come from Canada. Weak dollar explains most of it.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
news:SN3lk.8152$KZ....@newsfe03.iad...
i just read something that inflation is more like 12-14% using pre clinton
methodology. so, those of the clinton era did something to change how we
calculate inflation so it's now something like 5%. of course, figures lie
and liars figure.
Siskuwihane
> In article <SN3lk.8152$KZ.4...@newsfe03.iad>,
> PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com says...
Please let me know where I can get some diesel for $4.00 a gallon.
Around here it's $4.75
Siskuwihane
> In article <SN3lk.8152$KZ.4...@newsfe03.iad>,
>
If they are fighting over the affection of a peanut, they can be very
entertaining.
Seerialmom
> In article <SN3lk.8152$KZ.4...@newsfe03.iad>,
>
> clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
They are when you watch the birds fighting over them....and fail to
notice the cat creeping up on them :p
Patricia Martin Steward
<der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>i just read something that inflation is more like 12-14% using pre clinton
>methodology. so, those of the clinton era did something to change how we
>calculate inflation so it's now something like 5%. of course, figures lie
>and liars figure.
Here's what I know: we had it GOOD in the Clinton era -- great
economy, low unemployment, and he left a surplus behind.
What do we have now?
--
Face your fears.
Live your dreams.
Nicik Name
"Siskuwihane" <Siskuw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:435038d0-72b3-46f4...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
When Bush said the word DRILL a few weeks back the speculator bubble
burst.........
Your $4.00 a gallon will be arriving shortly............
George
You overlooked a lot of the details. You forgot the spectacular dot com
crash and the reason for it. The Clintons' SEC conveniently looked the
other way as pirates such As enron, MCI etc were doing their thing with
the result that the taxes poured in from all of the stock trading
building a surplus. Remember even various state governments telling us
that they may even drop various taxes because they had so much tax
revenue money on hand?
You may also remember that one of the Clintons main agendas was NAFTA
and other treaties designed to lower the US down to the level of other
countries. It took a couple years but it worked.
clams_casino
>
> You overlooked a lot of the details. You forgot the spectacular dot
> com crash and the reason for it. The Clintons' SEC conveniently looked
> the other way as pirates such As enron, MCI etc were doing their thing
> with the result that the taxes poured in from all of the stock trading
> building a surplus.
There was some contribution due to over valued stocks, but most shares
of those companies never produced taxable gains. The primary reason
taxes poured in was because employment was so good for so long (longest
business expansion on record) through good wages / plenty of overtime /
good employment rates, etc. Jobs lost under GW have been replaced
primarily with very low paying (primarily retail) jobs where the number
of replacement jobs have not been reflecting the reduced paychecks /
reduced taxes under GW.
> Remember even various state governments telling us that they may even
> drop various taxes because they had so much tax revenue money on hand?
>
That was GW's first push for his tax rebates. When the economy began
tanking upon his election (investors immediately flocked to CDs & bonds
while business significantly curtailed expansion plans), GW did his
typical spin & reversed his logic claiming providing tax relief for the
wealthy would create jobs & build much needed demand.
So which was it? Tax rebates for the wealthy because they would not be
inflationary (would not create surplus demand) or tax rebates for the
wealthy because they would create much need jobs through a stronger
economy (improved demand)? Obviously, his first logic was the valid
logic, but he did it all through borrowed money.
Rod Speed
> Patricia Martin Steward wrote
>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> i just read something that inflation is more like 12-14% using pre clinton methodology. so, those of the clinton
>>> era did something to change how we calculate inflation so it's now something like 5%. of course, figures lie and
>>> liars figure.
>> Here's what I know: we had it GOOD in the Clinton era --
>> great economy, low unemployment, and he left a surplus behind.
>> What do we have now?
> You overlooked a lot of the details.
Yep.
> You forgot the spectacular dot com crash and the reason for it.
Nothing any Prez ever gets to do anything about.
> The Clintons' SEC conveniently looked the other way as pirates such As enron, MCI etc were doing their thing with the
> result that the taxes poured in from all of the stock trading building a surplus.
That wasnt the reason for the surplus.
> Remember even various state governments telling us that they may even drop various taxes because they had so much tax
> revenue money on hand?
Nothing to do with the Prez either.
> You may also remember that one of the Clintons main agendas was NAFTA
Yep.
> and other treaties designed to lower the US down to the level of other countries.
Nope.
> It took a couple years but it worked.
Nope, it wasnt what produced the current result.
Slick didnt do anything useful about bin Laden and that did produce 9/11.
Rod Speed
> George wrote
>> You overlooked a lot of the details. You forgot the spectacular dot
>> com crash and the reason for it. The Clintons' SEC conveniently
>> looked the other way as pirates such As enron, MCI etc were doing
>> their thing with the result that the taxes poured in from all of the
>> stock trading building a surplus.
> There was some contribution due to over valued stocks, but most shares of those companies never produced taxable
> gains.
Yep.
> The primary reason taxes poured in was because employment was so good for so long
Nope, because the economy was booming.
> (longest business expansion on record) through good wages / plenty of overtime / good employment rates, etc.
Didnt have anything much to do with wages etc.
That was a result of the economy booming, not the cause of it.
> Jobs lost under GW have been replaced primarily with very low paying (primarily retail) jobs where the number of
> replacement jobs have not been reflecting the reduced paychecks / reduced taxes under GW.
Pig ignorant lie. Plenty of that happened with Slick too, most obviously with offshoring.
>> Remember even various state governments telling us that they may even
>> drop various taxes because they had so much tax revenue money on hand?
> That was GW's first push for his tax rebates. When the economy began tanking upon his election (investors
> immediately flocked to CDs & bonds while business significantly curtailed expansion plans),
Another pig ignorant lie.
> GW did his typical spin & reversed his logic claiming providing tax relief for the wealthy would create jobs & build
> much needed demand.
There was a hell of a lot more tax relief than for just the wealthy.
And the real reason both did quite well on some areas was interest rates, not taxes.
> So which was it? Tax rebates for the wealthy
There was a hell of a lot more tax relief than for just the wealthy.
> because they would not be inflationary (would not create surplus demand) or tax rebates for the wealthy
There was a hell of a lot more tax relief than for just the wealthy.
> because they would create much need jobs through a stronger economy (improved demand)?
Or both.
> Obviously, his first logic was the valid logic, but he did it all through borrowed money.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
suds macheath
---And, he would have done even less if the repubs had their way. Repubs
of the day claimed Clinton was "wagging the dog" to remove scrutiny of
his affair with Lewinsky. As soon as he was elected, Shrub's
administration dropped terrorism prevention for star wars programs.
Rod Speed
>> Yep.
>> Yep.
>> Nope.
> And, he would have done even less if the repubs had their way.
Lie.
> Repubs of the day claimed Clinton was "wagging the dog" to remove scrutiny of his affair with Lewinsky.
Corse he did. He never did anything like that any other time.
> As soon as he was elected, Shrub's administration dropped terrorism prevention for star wars programs.
Another lie. And they certainly didnt do anything like that post 9/11 when it became
obvious what terrorists could do. And there hasnt been another anything like that since.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Patricia Martin Steward" <impa...@notverizon.net> wrote in message
news:djfp945a2eevofm8p...@4ax.com...
HE DID NOT LEAVE A SURPLUS. just an illusion of one. not even sure
if the money for the analog airwaves has been collected yet.
clams_casino
Whether or not he left a surplus is obviously up for debate based on how
it is figured.
No matter how it's figured, we the people have well over $0.5T in MORE
debt than when GW was placed in office.
That's not debatable.
Don Klipstein
I would debate such a low number for increase of national debt as of
August 2008 since the Shrub took office in 2001. It appears to me more
like 2, maybe 2.5 T$ than half a terabuck.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
clams_casino
Thanks for the correction.. $0.5T was actually the 2007 projected
increase in debt for just 2008 -
"On Aug. 23 (2007), the national debt officially reached $8.98 trillion.
That level represents an increase of $3.25 trillion (57 percent) since
Jan. 20, 2001, when George Bush became the 43rd president of the United
States. Between now and Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2007, the national
debt should increase by another $40 billion. The White House's recent
Mid-Session Review estimated that the national debt will increase $565
billion in fiscal 2008."
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
--
----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin
www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny
heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:knMnk.8604$i15....@newsfe01.iad...
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>
>>"Patricia Martin Steward" <impa...@notverizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:djfp945a2eevofm8p...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:00:15 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
>>><der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>i just read something that inflation is more like 12-14% using pre
>>>>clinton
>>>>methodology. so, those of the clinton era did something to change how
>>>>we
>>>>calculate inflation so it's now something like 5%. of course, figures
>>>>lie
>>>>and liars figure.
>>>>
>>>Here's what I know: we had it GOOD in the Clinton era -- great
>>>economy, low unemployment, and he left a surplus behind.
>>>
>>>What do we have now?
>>>
>>
>>HE DID NOT LEAVE A SURPLUS. just an illusion of one. not even sure
>>if the money for the analog airwaves has been collected yet.
>>
>>
> Whether or not he left a surplus is obviously up for debate based on how
> it is figured.
liars figure. surely you can't believe that you have a surplus when you
haven't
recieved the payment? no wonder this country's in trouble.