Dumbass Bernanke thinks real economic growth comes from inflation. It's the other way around.

If prices start to rise materially the banks, who are holding paper with super-low rates are ****ed. Can you say S&L * 100?

These numbers are Y/Y % change in aggregate dollars spent? Or are they some sort of % of disposable income? Because if it is the former, then all this says is that lower income people are eating home more often and eating more fooed when they are home.

Pod - look at the income numbers.

I'm not exactly worried about these folks. They are the same ones who receive enormous government benefits, they will prosper at my expense.

Quote:

That is, you can't swap down to hamburger from steak - you're already eating hamburger, rice and beans.

Bravo Ben: Let them eat mud pies!
Salt, vegetable oil, and dirt. Stock up before winter!

Everything is about income. THat is why I do not belive inflation is sustainable at current wage rates. yeah, we might spike up in prices...but the good old law of supply and demand will eventually rear its fugly head. At which point, prices will re adjust lower to meet the lower demand thanks to rising prices. My company deals in commodities...all kind of commodities, from wheat and grains to steel, copper, aluminum, chemicals, textiles and oils (all kinds). Prices are going higher, yet our volumes are going lower.....SOMEONE explain that to me...please.

Risk, foreigners consumption has grown a lot especially since their currencies have appreciated a lot.

Oil priced in Australian Dollars is going down, this really is a USD problem as America continues to be a smaller piece of the global pie prices can rise with lower local demands.

Poor people tend to vote for liberals anyway, so isn't this what they wanted? Why feel bad for them when overwhelmingly they voted for Obama and others of his ilk

prices higher volume lower - fraud speculation with bennie bucks

@corn - they will prosper at your expense for awhile but soon your expense will not be enough and your gvt will not be able to support them, at that point you will become "concerned":) if not a corn-nugget!

"I'm not exactly worried about these folks. They are the same ones who receive enormous government benefits, they will prosper at my expense. "

No. I pay a flat rate tax called social security. That's 12.4 percent on any income below 97K. I'm way below. Under 19K. I'm working hard for this wage too.

@rustedbird, that's not a tax in the true sense of the word as you are to be given benefits later in life.

Do you think those who make a lot don't pay 12.4 percent plus obscene income taxes you don't pay?

Quote:

@rustedbird, that's not a tax in the true sense of the word as you are to be given benefits later in life.

Do you think those who make a lot don't pay 12.4 percent plus obscene income taxes you don't pay?

The higher the income, the less SS taxes you pay as a percentageof income because of the cap on SS taxes. And, it is a tax with no guarantee of a future return.

At the risk of sounding unkind, I find it hard to feel sympathetic for those in the lowest quintile who don't change their spending habits on "Food away from home" - the most expensive kind of food.
Dumbasses.

Direstraits wrote..

Poor people tend to vote for liberals anyway, so isn't this what they wanted? Why feel bad for them when overwhelmingly they voted for Obama and others of his ilk

Liberals long ago found their ecological niche in this society, as intermediaries between the mainstream and the underclass.

At the cost of transfer payments from the productive to the unproductive -- after the rake off the top by the aparatchics in the bowels of the governmental and NGO apparatuses -- the latter remain sufficiently bought off to refrain from burning down the cities.

If the bread runs out for this bread and circus show, the circus is going to turn into a real circus.

Quote:

At the cost of transfer payments from the productive to the unproductive -- after the rake off the top by the aparatchics in the bowels of the governmental and NGO apparatuses -- the latter remain sufficiently bought off to refrain from burning down the cities.

If the bread runs out for this bread and circus show, the circus is going to turn into a real circus.

I will not be held hostage. If they choose to go this route they will face the consequences. And if it happens due to fiscal collapse, the government will not be in a position to protect them anymore.

Nature abhors a vacuum. So like has already reportedly begun in some localities, local gangs and warlords -- more or less in collusion with local "authorities" -- will step into the void and set up protection rackets on the neighborhood level.

If you think IRS collection efforts can be dire...

What kind of BS is this:

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers
Updated 6h 43m ago |  Comments 1,433  |  Recommend 69 E-mail | Save | Print |
Share
Yahoo! Buzz
 Add to Mixx
 Facebook
 Twitter
More
Subscribe
 myYahoo
 iGoogle
More
By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg Business News
Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.
Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

FIGHTS: Lawsuits over health care law heat up
REFORM: A consumer primer for health insurance changes in 2011
WHAT'S CHANGING: Provisions of the new health law
HEALTH CARE: New website compares coverage prices
Q&A: Answers on adding adult children to health insurance
"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo.

The regulations would have hit some insurance plans for young adults in the universal coverage program run by the state of Massachusetts. The program, enacted in 2006, has a plan for individuals ages 18 to 26 who can't get coverage through work, covering about 5,000 people. The waiver obtained by the state "will give us time to implement the transition plan in a manner designed to mitigate premium increases," says Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state program.

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.

© 2010 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved

You might also be interested in:
Insurance regulators face tough balancing act (USATODAY.com in Money)
McDonald's denies report of dropping health care (USATODAY.com in Money)
Along highways, signs of serial killings (USATODAY.com in News)
Prosecuting offices' immunity tested (USATODAY.com in News)
Selected for you by a sponsor:
20 Different Areas to Think About for a Cheaper Auto Insurance Policy (MoneyNing)
Yahoo! Buzz Mixx        
Posted 20h 11m ago
Updated 6h 43m ago
E-mail | Save | Print |
To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more.

"That is, you can't swap down to hamburger from steak - you're already eating hamburger, rice and beans."

No, but you CAN go from hamburger to frozen family sized foil tins of Salisbury steak and gravy and sliced turkey and gravy!

Hmmm, family sized foil tins of Salisbury steak and gravy... (in Homer voice)

Thanks for the childhood memories, KD!

I thought it was interesting how much the top 40% are spending on education... does that mean we're all retooling for the new economy?

I know I am.

It looks like the bottom 40% is not (or is just not financially able to do so).

Interesting graphs...

Prolonged low interest rates and currency debasement grind away at the economic fundamentals. Those that are retired or close to retirement lose their fixed income. The incentive to save goes away, which destroys capital formation--people don't put their money in banks, banks don't lend. As a result, velocity of money slows dramatically. Both the consumer velocity and the lending velocity.

In the meantime, the higher commodity prices, without a corresponding rise in wages, causes a decrease in disposable income, which is a further hit on the velocity of money. It further increases business expense, but without a corresponding increase in revenues. So profits get squeezed.

All around, it's bad.

Your country now has more people on food stamps than my country has people.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/foodsta....

this column pretty much sums up the damage that obama/ bernanke are doing to the very same people they pretend to be "helping".

i think aaron's comments also sum it up. he said everything that i wanted to say first, so he sucks.:)