The Price of Commodities...

[Bruce McAuley]

Is it just me, or are the prices of ALL commodities going through the roof?
Maybe because the dollar is getting weaker by the day?
Was our fearless forecaster CrowTrobot right?

Bruce

[lenny]

Dollar weakening, and high energy cost to get all that stuff to the shelves perhaps?

[JIMV]

Not you...I wrote way back in August on the old forum that I thought the issue in November woudl not be the war, pretty much won, but the recession. The commodities are a symptem of the dollar drop and the credit crash. Homes are way down, and the markets world wide are down.

The candidate who comes up with the best program to fix things will win. So far the dems want to raise taxes and the republicans want to cut....let's see what happens over the next month or so.

[Drivesme]

No one is saying they are going to raise taxes and cutting them sure doesn't work.
We have more than proven that, so taxes are not the problem.:rolleyes:
We are way beyond taxes at this point.
The dollar is weak, very weak and falling.
Trade deficit is growing and we are now at the mercy of other country's.
Add to that the 'write downs' of the last few days and we are looking at the same thing with the mortgage company's as we were with the S&L's during raygun.
I wonder we learned our lesson?
It sure doesn't look like it.

[JIMV]

There are only two ways to stimulate the economy, cut taxes or print money. Both work but printing money has more long term problems.

[Bruce McAuley]

There's no way to tell any more, they don't release those figures.
How can we tell what they're REALLY doing?
Because they say so?
Not good enough.:eek:

Bruce

[Erika]

We could fix our economy if it wasn't for Bush's endless wars.

Check out www.icasualties.org to see what wev'e "won".

[GUS]

I thought war spending was suppose to stimulate the economy. It certainly has stimulated the pocketbooks of Cheney and others tied into the the Bush Administration.

Many millionaires have been made at the expense of over a million innocent Iraqi lives. Republicans will do anything for the cash and forget about the massive collateral damage.

China, Japan and other third world nations have financed the Iraq War with all the treasury bonds they have bought totaling up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Guess who will pay for those sales and the interest totals?

I have no sympathy for those who elected "their blue eyes idol" TWICE and now suffer the rise in cost of commodities and maybe even lose their lifetime savings. I do have empathy for those who had no part in this republican debacle of massive lies and debasing the middle and lower class populations in every greedy way possible. Sadly the rightwingers do not take responsiblility for their own actions but shift the onus upon American youth and those who do not qualify for Bush's next richman tax break.

[Drivesme]

War is supposed to help the economy and it always has but not this time.
The reasons are most of the trillion dollars spent so far has been spent over seas.
Thanks to the republicans company's can now ship not only their jobs over seas but all of our money as well.

Taxes are not the problem with the economy, they never have been.

I would also love to see the planet where there is only 2 ways to stimulate the economy!

[GUS]

It is interesting that while our United States home sales business is tanking the real estate biz in Mexico is going full blast.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080120/mexico_housing.html

[Erika]

Then we can fix the economy.

[freewolf46]

Then we can fix the economy.

What's the plan? Any Idea?

[Erika]

Invest in our infrastructure and green endeavors. The billions each month now shipped to Iraq can be spent here.

[freewolf46]

Sorry. Hillary and Obama do not want to stop the war. They just want to move it to Iran and Pakistan.

Got another plan?

[Erika]

Or post your documentation.

[freewolf46]

Democratic debates.

[NuclearShadows]

Or post your documentation.

I posted on this thread ( http://www.boiseweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2291) a while back evidence that Hillary and Obama support war in their own words. So freewolf is right.

Here is my take on some things. Even though I am glad in most part that the government holds people accountable for health and environment issues, I also see where beaurocracy and excessive regulations add to the cost of everything. I think that there is a way to get the feds out of our business, strengthen to role of the states, trust most industry to self regulate and get rid of the overbearing federal government in most things in our lives. That would drop the cost of most everything. In this way I agree with some of Ron Paul’s ideas in that regard.

Now, the republicans are always saying that to stimulate the economy tax cuts work… I am really inept when it comes to matters like this as I have always admitted. But… It seems to me that if you receive fewer tax dollars from the American people, but continue to fully fund wars, somewhere along the line a lot of sectors are going to have to take a hit… It is nice to say, we want you to have more of your money to do what you want. But along with that the money that they do take will continue to go for past, present and future wars…. They may not have enough foe education but they sure as hell will make sure that there are enough cluster bombs on hand…..

[Drivesme]

What's the plan? Any Idea?

Not doing what we have been for the last 8 years should work pretty damned good!

[Drivesme]

Sorry. Hillary and Obama do not want to stop the war. They just want to move it to Iran and Pakistan.

Got another plan?

OK, you asked some to post proof of what they say, now it's your turn.

[Drivesme]

I posted on this thread ( http://www.boiseweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2291) a while back evidence that Hillary and Obama support war in their own words. So freewolf is right.
No he is not correct and neither are you.
Obama and Clinton do not want to move the war to Iran and Pakastan.
That is an outright lie just as they "are going to raise your taxes" is a lie.
Both of them have said they will get us out of Iraq. Both have also said, rightly I might add that will continue to defend this country. Both have said that at some point in time we might have to go back into Iraq, lets face it bush has made a huge mess of things the world over and who knows how it will shake out.
If you are looking for a President that will leave the US pretty much undefended, then Paul is your man.
Myself I lean to a candidate that lives in the real world, call me crazy.


Here is my take on some things. Even though I am glad in most part that the government holds people accountable for health and environment issues, I also see where beaurocracy and excessive regulations add to the cost of everything. I think that there is a way to get the feds out of our business, strengthen to role of the states, trust most industry to self regulate and get rid of the overbearing federal government in most things in our lives. That would drop the cost of most everything. In this way I agree with some of Ron Paul’s ideas in that regard.
I've got a bridge I'll sell you.
What make you are Paul think that a company, A) will do the right thing and 'self regulate'? Just look at Texas, they have been on a very limited version of that program for awhile now and they are the most polluted state in the country.
B) That they will pass those savings on to the consumer?
You know they won't.

Ron Paul is a populist, he is saying what he knows will fire people up, there has been one in every election for the last 20 years, good people with good intentions but everyone of them has been crazy as an outhouse rat and Paul is no different.

Now, the republicans are always saying that to stimulate the economy tax cuts work… I am really inept when it comes to matters like this as I have always admitted. But… It seems to me that if you receive fewer tax dollars from the American people, but continue to fully fund wars, somewhere along the line a lot of sectors are going to have to take a hit… It is nice to say, we want you to have more of your money to do what you want. But along with that the money that they do take will continue to go for past, present and future wars…. They may not have enough foe education but they sure as hell will make sure that there are enough cluster bombs on hand…..

Tax cuts are a joke and the republican party knows it, I have to wonder when the people that vote for them will figure it out.
The GOP sure hopes they never will.

[Old Round Guy]

Government entities impose taxes to pay for services they render, such as social programs, law enforcement, military and of course their own day to day operations.

A tax cut is essentially a loss of revenue to that government.

Some economists say that tax cuts will stimulate the economy

IF

Those who benefit from those tax cuts, such as industry and Corporations expand that business and create new jobs,

OR

invest in research and development to create new jobs.

NONE OF THE ABOVE HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

OR IF

There is a corresponding reduction in government spending.

Not only has that not been done, the bush administration has engaged in deficit spending to the tune of over $300 (B)illion dollars a year. That doesn't even count the fact that both the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq are still being financed outside the normal budget to the tune of between $60 and $90 billion and more periodically in supplemental budget requests.

Add to that the number of jobs that are being outsourced and the number of jobs that are being INSOURCED. That is, companies bringing in cheap foreign labor to replace American workers in techhical fields. CNN's Lou Dobbs used to have a list of those companies posted on his website, it appears that the list has been incorporated in his new book "Outsourcing America".

You would be absolutely AMAZED at the length of that list and some of the corporate names on that list.

Then again, maybe not.

Add to that the fact that our national trade debt is increasing rapidly, particularly with China to the point of approaching GDP. That's a big chunk of America's assets to be owned by foreign entities.

Add to that a jobless rate that is estimated to be over 9 percent in reality. The bush administration's numbers don't include those persons who are jobless and who have no benefits, they don't include those whose jobless benefits have expired and several other factors.

There's more that could be added to this list.

[NuclearShadows]

No he is not correct and neither are you.
Obama and Clinton do not want to move the war to Iran and Pakastan.
That is an outright lie....

Oh really... (http://www.lvrj.com/news/8930372.html)

[Drivesme]

Oh really... (http://www.lvrj.com/news/8930372.html)
Yes, really.
Here is what he said,
"If those folks who killed 3,000 of us are training to act again, and we have actionable intelligence and can take them out, and the (Pakistani) government won't act, then we should act,"

I put in bold the important part of his statement.

Now if you, or free, could please put in bold where he said he would invade Pakistan, or "move the war" to Pakistan I would appreciate it.

I'm still waiting for anything from Clinton on this as well, thanks.

BTW, Obama also said,
"We are spending $275 million a day in Iraq and I want to get that money back and spend some of it here in Elko,"
He is such a war monger......

[NuclearShadows]

Yes, really.
Here is what he said,
"If those folks who killed 3,000 of us are training to act again, and we have actionable intelligence and can take them out, and the (Pakistani) government won't act, then we should act,"

I put in bold the important part of his statement.

Now if you, or free, could please put in bold where he said he would invade Pakistan, or "move the war" to Pakistan I would appreciate it.

I'm still waiting for anything from Clinton on this as well, thanks.

BTW, Obama also said,
"We are spending $275 million a day in Iraq and I want to get that money back and spend some of it here in Elko,"
He is such a war monger......

Semantics…
I am reading between the lines and I think you are focused on face value.
Clinton and Obama would both take us into war. What the hell does “actionable intelligence” mean anyway? I am sure Bill Clinton used “actionable intelligence” when he bombed the aspirin factory and Bush did the same when he invaded Iraq…

In the last debate Clinton, Obama and Edwards all said that they would go after universities that reject ROTC programs. This illustrates their commitment to the culture of war.

Living in the “real” world…
Now do we have to have a debate on what the nature of reality is?

[lenny]

Semantics: (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=semantics) 3 b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.

There are only two candidates committed to ending the war and changing our foreign policy in a manner that will cause this country to stop behaving like a belligerent Empire. To pretend otherwise is blatant cognitive dissonance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

[Drivesme]

Semantics…
Not really, but...
I am reading between the lines and I think you are focused on face value.
No, you are doing the same thing I am doing, we are both injecting what we want to see and hear. You want and need for everyone to be a war monger, i don't.
Clinton and Obama would both take us into war.
That is something no one, not you nor I can know.
We can have our opinions however.
What the hell does “actionable intelligence” mean anyway? I am sure Bill Clinton used “actionable intelligence” when he bombed the aspirin factory and Bush did the same when he invaded Iraq…
Clinton didn't bomb an aspirin factory and made up his own intel, talk about "Semantics" :rolleyes:

In the last debate Clinton, Obama and Edwards all said that they would go after universities that reject ROTC programs. This illustrates their commitment to the culture of war.
Wow.

Living in the “real” world…
Now do we have to have a debate on what the nature of reality is?
Where is this coming from?

[Drivesme]

Semantics: (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=semantics) 3 b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.

There are only two candidates committed to ending the war and changing our foreign policy in a manner that will cause this country to stop behaving like a belligerent Empire. To pretend otherwise is blatant cognitive dissonance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Atta boy Lenny, keep up the good work.:rolleyes:

[NuclearShadows]

Clinton didn't bomb an aspirin factory and made up his own intel, talk about "Semantics" :rolleyes:

Well it seems to me that he was supposedly using actionable intelligence.
August 21, 1998
….Clinton said he had "convincing" intelligence that bin Laden's terrorist network was behind the embassy bombings. And he accused groups tied to bin Laden of a host of murderous attacks and foiled plots like killing international peacekeepers in Somalia and planning to assassinate the Pope…. (http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html)

Why did our government clear the owner of the factory of any wrong doing and admit it was a mistake and pay $24 million (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0507-SudanMistake.html) if actionable intelligence confirmed it?

[NuclearShadows]

Semantics: (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=semantics) 3 b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.

There are only two candidates committed to ending the war and changing our foreign policy in a manner that will cause this country to stop behaving like a belligerent Empire. To pretend otherwise is blatant cognitive dissonance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

I mostly am in agreement with drivesme and McGyver on things, but on this issue of the dem candidates and war we just see it differently I suppose.... :rolleyes:

[Drivesme]

I mostly am in agreement with drivesme and McGyver on things, but on this issue of the dem candidates and war we just see it differently I suppose.... :rolleyes:

In fact we see eye to eye on this, I, like you, would love for there to be no war, I want that more than anything.
I also know that it will never happen and the best we can hope for is a leader that will do the utmost to avoid more war, and/or work to end the war we are in.

At this point in time, the best choice for that is either Obama or Clinton, the 2 nut bags out on the fringe are great but you have to know that they do not stand a chance.

[JIMV]

Then we can fix the economy.

By raising taxes and choking off business? Just what is the program? So far I see the dems advocating two things, tax increases and class envy. Neither is a good economic program. The dem congress was elected to stop wasteful spending, earmakrs and pork...they have not doen any of that. Folk have noticed. Now the economy is in deep trouble and all we hear is tax the rich? When the rich get taxed the poor lose employment.

[JIMV]

Now, the republicans are always saying that to stimulate the economy tax cuts work… I am really inept when it comes to matters like this as I have always admitted. But… It seems to me that if you receive fewer tax dollars from the American people, but continue to fully fund wars, somewhere along the line a lot of sectors are going to have to take a hit… It is nice to say, we want you to have more of your money to do what you want. But along with that the money that they do take will continue to go for past, present and future wars…. They may not have enough foe education but they sure as hell will make sure that there are enough cluster bombs on hand…..

Less than 5% of GDP goes into war no matter how you spin it. Less than 9% of the federal budget is about the war. We spend more money every year on earmarks, pork and welfare than on the war. The real answer is forcing politicians of all parties to set priorities and then fund those and stop, as in kill the pork.

[Drivesme]

By raising taxes and choking off business? Just what is the program? So far I see the dems advocating two things, tax increases and class envy. Neither is a good economic program. The dem congress was elected to stop wasteful spending, earmakrs and pork...they have not doen any of that. Folk have noticed. Now the economy is in deep trouble and all we hear is tax the rich? When the rich get taxed the poor lose employment.
The really good thing here is that only a very few people actually believe this crap.

[Drivesme]

Less than 5% of GDP goes into war no matter how you spin it. Less than 9% of the federal budget is about the war. We spend more money every year on earmarks, pork and welfare than on the war. The real answer is forcing politicians of all parties to set priorities and then fund those and stop, as in kill the pork.

Cutting 9% of the federal budget won't help??:rolleyes:

[JIMV]

Cutting 9% of the federal budget won't help??:rolleyes:


You mispeak, there is no talk of cutting at all, just redirecting. That 9% would go to some other project and then some more. read the candidates promises...There is no free lunch.

[Drivesme]

You mispeak, there is no talk of cutting at all, just redirecting. That 9% would go to some other project and then some more. read the candidates promises...There is no free lunch.

OK, so spending 9% of the budget at home instead of pissing it away overseas is bad thing?
Spending 9% of the budget to maybe help Americans instead of killing them is going to be a bad thing, why?

When did a candidates 'promise' begin to mean something?

[Erika]

doesn't work.

The middle class is shrinking and the low income are hurting more than ever before. Especially in Idaho, with its tax increase on groceries by Risch without a way of compensating the needy for the taxes on food.

Bush/Cheney has simply transferred the wealth from America to corporate globalists turning this country into a third world status.

[JIMV]

doesn't work.

The middle class is shrinking and the low income are hurting more than ever before. Especially in Idaho, with its tax increase on groceries by Risch without a way of compensating the needy for the taxes on food.

Bush/Cheney has simply transferred the wealth from America to corporate globalists turning this country into a third world status.

Putting aside the inaccuracies of the post, just what are the dems promising to do??? Really, I have asked and asked and all I get are slogans. What specific plans do they have...

[McGyver]

Putting aside the inaccuracies of the post, just what are the dems promising to do??? Really, I have asked and asked and all I get are slogans. What specific plans do they have...

You know what I find really funny about your question Jim, is that George W. Bush has been in office for 7 years, and I have Yet to see a "Specific Plan" from Him! Why is it you never demanded a "Plan," like say an Exit Plan for Iraq from George W. Bush all these years? And yet here you are demanding a "specific" plan from Democratic Presidential Candidates, who may or may not even get elected?

How about telling us just what the Republican Candidates "specific" Plans are Jim? I'd really be interested in knowing your take on that question?

As for the Democrats, I guess each of the Candidates has their own specific plans. So I guess if You want "Specific" Plans, then I recommend that you go to each of the Democratic Presidential Campaign Websites and I'm sure you can get much more specifics than I am ready, willing or able to provide in this post. However, I do know that "some" of the things I hear Democrats talking about doing if and when they are elected President are:

Get Our Troops Out of Iraq (Depending on the Candidate, that can begin immediately or over a reasonable period of time

Devote more resources to Stem Cell Research

Establish a Universal Health Care Plan

Public Funding for Federal Campaigns

Reduce the deficit, much like the last Democatic President did

Restore a sense of Pride for our Country and our President

Restore our reputation as "Role Model" around the world

Start once again to use "Diplomacy" instead of pre-emptive, unnecessary Wars

Demand that auto makers make dramatic and continuous inprovement in mpg

Make education affordable for everyone, not just the wealthy

Begin to improve the life of the middle and lower class, instead of just the wealthy 1% of Americans

Get our country focused once again on getting the Man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden!

Restore faith and trust in America to all of our friends and allies around the world!

Ensure that the U.S. Supreme Court does not get another Right Wing Wacko appointed to a Lifetime Position on the court.





************************************************** ************************************************** *

[Erika]

They know it but don't have the guts to admit it.

[Erika]

They were the ones in charge.

[Drivesme]

Putting aside the inaccuracies of the post, just what are the dems promising to do??? Really, I have asked and asked and all I get are slogans. What specific plans do they have...
The first thing is to replace the rightwing fascists.
Then most things will just correct themselves.

Up to that point however it isn't the 'dems' that have to come up with a plan, it's bush the loser.....and we all know where that is going to take us.:rolleyes:

[NuclearShadows]

Less than 5% of GDP goes into war no matter how you spin it. Less than 9% of the federal budget is about the war. We spend more money every year on earmarks, pork and welfare than on the war. The real answer is forcing politicians of all parties to set priorities and then fund those and stop, as in kill the pork.

So this is a lie?

Budget of the United States Government
Fiscal Year 2008 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/index.html)

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY08.gif

[GUS]

Putting aside the inaccuracies of the post, just what are the dems promising to do??? Really, I have asked and asked and all I get are slogans. What specific plans do they have...

The energy security bill was the first time in 32 yrs that Congress increased fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. This will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and could save each driver as much as $1K a year.

As you well know most Americans and congress oppose the war. After repeatedly passing legislation to bring home our troops, the house has been blocked by Dumbya and the Senate thus your party will enforce another year of lost soldiers lives and another year of lost prestige woldwide.

This year the house again will try to pass the bill that gives insurance to 10 million kids, along with trying to increase investment in research on cancer and other illnesses while trying to get funds for prevention and welllness programs.

Actually about 3/4ths of the Dems agenda in the house passed with wide bipartiasan support. In the meantime write your congress people and know that an aide at least will scan your letter and place it in either a pro or con pile which the big civil servant will take note of.

[JIMV]

Get Our Troops Out of Iraq (Depending on the Candidate, that can begin immediately or over a reasonable period of time

Unimportant...a 2006 issue

Devote more resources to Stem Cell Research

Not an economic play but a social goal

Establish a Universal Health Care Plan

Not an economic plan and not funded

Public Funding for Federal Campaigns

Not an economic plan

Reduce the deficit, much like the last Democatic President did

not an economic plan and sort of lacking in detail

Restore a sense of Pride for our Country and our President

:rolleyes:

Restore our reputation as "Role Model" around the world

:rolleyes:

Start once again to use "Diplomacy" instead of pre-emptive, unnecessary Wars

Is any of this list an economic plan?

Demand that auto makers make dramatic and continuous inprovement in mpg

Nope, not an economic plan

I did ask for specifics about economics

[JIMV]

So this is a lie?

Budget of the United States Government
Fiscal Year 2008 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/index.html)

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY08.gif

Sorry, but that chart did not come from the "budget of the United States"...try this link, then go to the PDF summary tables.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/budget.html

Unlike your pie chart, this is an official budget link.

Some Highlights:

Total discretionary funding $929.8 Billion

Defense - $481.4 Billion

Now add in Homeland Security - $.3 billion

or, go to table S-7 and note the total defense discretionary spending of

$658 Billion

Non defense discretionary $456 Billion

mandatory spending:

Social Security $608 Billion
Medicair $386 Billion
Medicaid $209 Billion

Some details of the non Discretionary non defense spending
Education $56 Billion
Energy $23 Billion
Health & Human services $69 Billion
Housing & Urban dev - $35 Billion

darn, looks like that pie chart was a bit off....a good bit, unless you just pretend all that maqndatory spending doesn't count.

[Drivesme]

Sorry, but that chart did not come from the "budget of the United States"...try this link, then go to the PDF summary tables.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/budget.html

Unlike your pie chart, this is an official budget link.

Some Highlights:

Total discretionary funding $929.8 Billion

Defense - $481.4 Billion

Now add in Homeland Security - $.3 billion

or, go to table S-7 and note the total defense discretionary spending of

$658 Billion

Non defense discretionary $456 Billion

mandatory spending:

Social Security $608 Billion
Medicair $386 Billion
Medicaid $209 Billion

Some details of the non Discretionary non defense spending
Education $56 Billion
Energy $23 Billion
Health & Human services $69 Billion
Housing & Urban dev - $35 Billion

darn, looks like that pie chart was a bit off....a good bit, unless you just pretend all that maqndatory spending doesn't count.

You trust something that comes from the White House??
THIS White House??

Yikes!:eek: