I've noticed the price disparity in poor neighborhoods vs average to well off as well. Bought an Icecream cone at Dairy Queen and noticed a variation in price from $1.99 to $2.99 for the same item.

I assume the reasoning is the higher instances(unsubstantiated) of loss from employee neglect and theft to actual robberies.

One would think the better neighborhood would cost one more moeny because of the location. Traffic is the big difference. More people are going to go through a nicer neighborhoods DQ than an old shabby looking one.

Could be loss and theft, but I suspect it is more likely vandalism related, having to spend more money keeping the building up and perhaps having to have another employee onsite for security reasons.

As to traffic, that may be reverse. In a poor hood people are on foot and can't go to the upscale hood.

---

I know they aren't going to like this chart ...

but it does look like the sequester and the grand standing are having the desired effect of forcing spending down.

Of course that is just exactly opposite what my econ prof said was "right."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-budget-deficit-680b-lowest-years-20732055

For the first time in five years, the U.S. government has run a budget deficit below $1 trillion.

The government says the deficit for the 2013 budget year totaled $680.3 billion, down from $1.09 trillion in 2012. That's the smallest imbalance since 2008, when the government ran a $458.6 billion deficit.

The deficit is the gap between the government's tax revenue and its spending. It narrowed for the budget year that ended on Sept. 30 because revenue rose while spending fell.

Revenue jumped 13.3 percent to $2.77 trillion, reflecting a slightly better economy and higher tax rates. And government spending declined 2.4 percent to $3.45 trillion, in part because of across-the-board spending cuts that took effect in March.

---

I can make graphs that defy logic, too. It's pretty unclear what exactly that graph is supposed to measure. If its deficits then where are the 2 years where Clinton ran in the black. if its the Rolling Stones chances of a reunion tour, I'd buy it

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Didn't your maths tutor teach you to label your axes?

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I can make graphs that defy logic, too. It's pretty unclear what exactly that graph is supposed to measure. If its deficits then where are the 2 years where Clinton ran in the black. if its the Rolling Stones chances of a reunion tour, I'd buy it

Well bitch at the person who drew the graph. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/10/how-partisans-should-respond-budget-deficit-hitting-five-year-low/71115/

---

It's pretty unclear what exactly that graph is supposed to measure. If its deficits then where are the 2 years where Clinton ran in the black.

It seems pretty obvious to me. The black bar running across the graph is $0. The surplus during the Clinton Administration is clearly visible by the rise above $0.

While the graph may not be clearly labeled, it isn't hard to use a little intuitive reasoning to figure it out.

Point out that the first slide under Bush started in the blue Clinton area. See? Hours of fun for all!

Hmmm wasn't a downturn until the end of Clintons era? really. I see a downward trend not a freefall. I do recall the W line of "It's your money, you get it back." and he toss $1trillion that could have been spent to reduce the debt but instead told people to spend money. He did this again just before elections as well. Here's a "stimulus"/vote for me free check in the mail. WTf how about a real fix to the economy. Oh yeah thats right. Conservative logic is to let markets go where they may. It worked great up until October 29, 1929 when the markets began to crash. Some recall this as the start of the great depression. It would be really clever if conservatives would abandon the "Handsoff" market strategy. It never works.

BTW the decreased deficit is less about reduced spending and the shutdown than actual tax revenue.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131030/us-fy-2013-deficit-down-375-tax-revenue-rise-outlay-cu

In fiscal 2013, total revenues grew 13.3 percent to $2,773.98 billion, due mainly to an economic recovery and the termination of cuts to income and social security taxes at the end of last year.

Total outlays dipped 2.4 percent to $3,454.25 billion, as overall expenditures were cut after automatic spending reductions took effect in March and the defense budget decreased on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the department said.

It seems that increased tax revenue is the easiest and least painful way of debt reduction.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

BTW the decreased deficit is less about reduced spending and the shutdown than actual tax revenue.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131030/us-fy-2013-deficit-down-375-tax-revenue-rise-outlay-cu

In fiscal 2013, total revenues grew 13.3 percent to $2,773.98 billion, ... the termination of cuts to ... social security taxes at the end of last year.

It seems that increased tax revenue is the easiest and least painful way of debt reduction.

Social Security taxes 100% belong to the Social Security Trust Fund. What is this thinking that they are just general fund money? Are we beginning to see the issue here? Trust Fund money burning a hole in Uncle Sam's pocket! If a private person did this, they would call it a Ponzi Scheme and send all of Congress to Leavenworth. Remember this is why the Feds had to bail out GM, unfunded pension plan. Who is going to bail out USA? China?!

---

I agree that the Social security should be a separate fund. However, they typically have that money on hand and the money isn't just going to sit in a vault somewhere.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I agree that the Social security should be a separate fund. However, they typically have that money on hand and the money isn't just going to sit in a vault somewhere.

They have it on hand?

And just where is this (approaching) $17 Trillion dollars of social security trust fund?

(strong hint: it's in the hands of children yet to be conceived)

No, it has been given away. Why is this number such a good match to the debt ceiling? Remember the Trust Fund can only buy US Treasury securities and the debt ceiling is financed by the sale of US Treasury securities. Remember the econ prof said it would be wrong to pay off the debt --- your future social security check.

---

In other words, those that have their cake and eat it today want to keep it. Sod the future, it's not our problem.

The day will approach when it will be their problem, so what then?

More political posturing?

---

In other words, those that have their cake and eat it today want to keep it. Sod the future, it's not our problem.

The day will approach when it will be their problem, so what then?

More political posturing?

They expect they will be pushing daises up when it hits the fan so why worry about it!

---

Eaxctly and in the meantime, push everyone out of the way while they grab the lions share of the trough.

Nice pigs but they need to be careful, there's a big bad wolf heading their way.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24767932

Retailers and grocers around the US are concerned about the possible negative impact the reduction will have on consumer spending.

So nice to know they are worrying about their precious profits ... much more important than

Benefits to the supplemental nutrition assistance program (Snap) will be lowered by $36 (£22) a month for a family of four, officials say.

Some 47 million low income Americans will be affected by the cuts.

...

About one in seven Americans relies on Snap, also known as food stamps.

---

Do Wal-mart and food stamps shoppers often coincide? If so, they could do with eating a bit less.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

walmart employees are the food stamp shoppers.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

walmart employees are the food stamp shoppers.

Might force Walmart to give them over 30 hours a week and put them on Obamacare policies. ;)

---

walmart employees are the food stamp shoppers.

Might force Walmart to give them over 30 hours a week and put them on Obamacare policies. ;)

You guys can laugh at that, But Ive been a part time employee back in the 80's. I worked 40 plus hours a week getting paid $6.00 bucks an hour with NO benifits doing the exact same job as the guys makeing $10.00 bucks an hour with all the perks. Why did I do that. Simple I was laid off from my Good job. I had no senority And had to pay my dues like evryone else.
I was laid off alot my first 7 years. I held quite a few part time jobs that paid little with no benifits but still had to work 40 plus hours a week.

There are to many cheap assed companys out there that do the same thing today. And it will get worse now that Obammy care is the law.

Maybe the company you work for will make you a part time piece of crap so they can make more profit.

---

[/quote]

Old James

There are to many cheap assed companys out there that do the same thing today. And it will get worse now that Obammy care is the law.

Maybe the company you work for will make you a part time piece of crap so they can make more profit.

It is not companies being cheap assed, it is companies maximizing profits without breaking the law (or at least without getting caught). Free enterprise is great for maximizing profits, but it has no conscience and will never do "the right thing" unless there is a profit in it. That is why we need governments to regulate them, set minimum wages, provide education and health care, and so on. And we need taxes to enable governments to do this. Free enterprise will buy and sell you, if they can get away with it. They will also push to minimize taxes, not out of some great philosophical understanding of how the universe should work, but just to make more money. At anyone's expense.

---