RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Gibson writes: "In this next election, we must ask every candidate who they would work for if elected - lobbyists or struggling single moms? Special interests or growing boys and girls? Campaign donors or small business owners? Folks like Jamie Denson and her two daughters have the right to know."

Jamie Denson and her daughter, Adara. (photo: Carl Gibson/RSN)
Jamie Denson and her daughter, Adara. (photo: Carl Gibson/RSN)

Why Gas and Groceries Are So Damn Expensive

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

04 September 12

Reader Supported News | Perspective


amie Denson is a single mother in Jackson, Mississippi. She has two daughters, ages 13 and 11, who love theatre and music, respectively (Jamie's youngest invited me and other musicians over for her jam band-themed 11th birthday party), whom Jamie lives for and would die for if necessary. Jamie is an auto glass repair technician, and is required to be mobile to meet her clients where they are. And as a mobile small business owner, Jamie depends on her car to get around, which depends on gas to be useful. And today, the cost of filling up her tank currently exceeds the revenue Jamie takes in from her clients. This leaves Jamie no choice but to raise prices and lose current and potential clients, or to try to run her business from home, which would also mean losing current and potential clients. Either way, Jamie's business is threatened, as is the livelihood of her two daughters. While she may be reluctant to raise her prices, her neighborhood grocery stores and gas stations certainly aren't.

The hidden cost of Wall Street speculation on oil comes up to at least $23 per barrel of oil, or 56 cents a gallon at the pump. That's about 15% of a $3.85 gallon of gas. And that's just what Goldman Sachs, one of the worst of the speculators, will admit to. The actual influence speculation has on gas prices is probably much higher. Meanwhile, Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Barclays have driven up prices by speculation on not just oil, but food as well. Thanks to commodity index trading, which lets investment firms bet on several commodities at once, everything can be speculated upon in a package deal. Between 2004 and 2008 commodity index trading volume went from $13 billion to $260 billion. Remember the summer of 2008 when gas was almost $5 a gallon?

While our wages stagnate, food prices have also jumped through the roof, and are expected to increase by up to 4% in the next year according to the USDA. A big part of this is due to the catastrophic drought plaguing much of the Midwest, and climate change forcing the once prosperous bread belt northward into Canada, constricting supply while demand increases. This forces us to import more crops to feed our own people, and is costing us billions in crop-export losses. It also means we're paying exponentially more to feed our own families when we shop. Climates changing at a dangerously rapid pace will directly hit families in the wallet and on the dinner table, regardless if they choose to accept the science or not. But a big factor that's also driving up food prices is speculation - while Barclays made $800 million betting on high food prices, the cost of food has risen in the UK by a whopping 37.9% in the past year.

The Commodities Futures and Trading Commission is tasked with reigning in excessive speculation on resources like oil and crops, and has the direct power from the federal government to crack down on the exact type of behavior that makes people like Jamie and her daughters suffer so Wall Street financiers can buy a newer Bentley. But with a Republican-led Congress determined to squash all government regulation that affects their campaign donors, the CFTC is left understaffed and underfunded, powerless to adequately police the Goldman Sachses and Morgan Stanleys of the world.

Situations for everyday people like Jamie and her daughters won't improve until we have more elected officials like Sen. Bernie Sanders who call for using laws already on the books to go after the crooks in the financial sector who are making life hard for regular working folks. And more than that, we need a government serious about addressing the issues caused by global warming, like rising oil and food prices, even if it involves putting forth solutions that hurt the bottom line of prospective campaign donors.

For starters, it could mean doing away with burning coal and natural gas to produce electricity, which we can easily do by building 100 miles of mirrors in the Nevada/Arizona deserts, which could provide free solar-powered energy for every home and business in the nation, many times over. It could mean requiring all cars to be produced with a hydrogen fuel cell-powered engine that only emits water vapor instead of CO2. After all, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and we've had hydrogen fuel cell technology since the 19th century. However, either solution would involve simultaneously pissing off the oil/coal/fracking/trucking lobbies, all of whom are big money power-players for politicians of both major parties.

In this next election, we must ask every candidate who they would work for if elected - lobbyists or struggling single moms? Special interests or growing boys and girls? Campaign donors or small business owners? Folks like Jamie Denson and her two daughters have the right to know.

Carl Gibson, 25, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Manchester, New Hampshire. You can contact Carl at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and listen to his online radio talk show, Swag The Dog, at

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-29 # SMoonz 2012-09-04 16:32
Eliminating the Fed and moving back to the Gold Standard would help us stop hyperinflation. Also, we need to stop speculators on Wall Street as they are driving us in to the ground.
+26 # brux 2012-09-04 22:03
There is absolutely no information to indicate that the Fed was the problem with the economy - it was the bankers, and no information to say that the gold standard would help anything. NONE!

Fixing a problem we do not have so you can make a pile of loot on gold speculation is sickening.
+15 # Underledge 2012-09-05 02:34
One thing wrong with your analysis is that the Fed are all Bankers!
0 # RLF 2012-09-05 06:19
Quantitative Easing (Fed) creates inflation...exc ept they are saying there is none because they don't include food and gas...isn't that convenient! No one talks about the dollar going through the floor during every republican presidency to encourage exports for corps. but creating high prices of our biggest import...OIL!
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-09-05 07:37
Quoting RLF:
Quantitative Easing (Fed) creates inflation...except they are saying there is none because they don't include food and gas...isn't that convenient! No one talks about the dollar going through the floor during every republican presidency to encourage exports for corps. but creating high prices of our biggest import...OIL!

RLF, there is nothing inherently inflationary about quantitative easing. Particularly since we went off the gold standard. Like with any commodity, if demand matches supply there is no inflation. In addition, if wages are not going up then the cost of production is not going up so again no inflation.

I agree with you that the government underestimates the true inflation numbers for the reasons you have stated but this is (and has been) true before as well as after quantitative easing so i don't think there is any evidence that the easing made things worse.

Since there is no alternative to the dollar (at this point) as the world's reserve currency the US and the $ is still the "go to" place. In addition, the countries that own large amounts of US debt do not want to see their investments devalued which is just what would happen if they start pulling them out in any significant way.

As for hyperinflation. ..the US is neither Germany post world war I nor current day greece so where is the evidence for this arguement?
+3 # edge 2012-09-05 07:14
Quoting brux:
There is absolutely no information to indicate that the Fed was the problem with the economy - ...

WOW, you must listen to the Politicians in Washington trying to save their asses!

Ethanol consumes 40% of the Corn market, not because it makes business sense, but because lawmakers pander!
Corn feeds everything from chickens to cows to hogs, it goes into your breakfast cereal and pet food...and now because Washington says so it is in your gas tank...when people around the World is sickening and shameful!

Now, the FED caused most of the recent problems but Washington won't admit that!

Wall Street sold the securities, but it was Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac that bought them and pushed the sub prime market. The markets did not crash until AFTER the Fed raised interest rates too high and held them there too long causing Freddie to stop buying the loans!! Within a month tens of thousand of workers lost their jobs as the Loan companies filed for bankruptcy.

So, we pay too much for the ethanol in our gas tanks, we pay too much for food because it goes into our gas tanks, and our economy crashed because of Government actions!
+5 # Third_stone 2012-09-05 07:28
The corn also has been modified so it is unfit to eat.
-2 # edge 2012-09-05 07:15
One more thing.
The Fed wants to stop inflation which is why it raises the interest rates.
Mind you this is not the inflation where the fat cats get big bonuses, but the WAGE inflation caused by Average Joe getting a raise!

When Joe does not get a raise he can't pay for the higher food, gas and housing costs...stop blaming Wall Street and wake up the the Feds control of your wages!
+4 # Third_stone 2012-09-05 07:31
Quite right. I have seen repeated business cycles in which prices of everything has risen while the fed keeps reporting no inflation, then as soon as wages start to move, the fed sets off the inflation alarm and raises interest rates to slow the economy, so the labor can't get a bigger share of the pie. They would rather ruin the pie than share it. In whose employ did they do this? We don't know, but there is a limited number who gained from it.
+5 # dkonstruction 2012-09-05 07:53
Quoting brux:
There is absolutely no information to indicate that the Fed was the problem with the economy - it was the bankers, and no information to say that the gold standard would help anything. NONE!

Fixing a problem we do not have so you can make a pile of loot on gold speculation is sickening.

Brux, I agree with you completely about the gold standard. People that argue that if only we went back on the gold standard everything would be ok i think have no real understanding of why we went off the gold standard in the first place.

At the same time, was not the Fed's cheap credit policies part of what created the housing bubble? if so, then aren't the Fed indeed part of the problem (in terms of creating the conditions that led to the financial crisis)?
+5 # dkonstruction 2012-09-05 08:00
Quoting SMoonz:
Eliminating the Fed and moving back to the Gold Standard would help us stop hyperinflation. Also, we need to stop speculators on Wall Street as they are driving us in to the ground.

Eliminating the Fed could be a good thing depending on what it was replaced with. If it were replaced by a truly publicly owned financial institution and the government took back the power to create "debt free" money I agree this would be a major step forward.

At the same time, the gold standard stuff is a distraction. The US went off the gold standard simply because it no longer had the gold reserves to cover the volume of dollars (which are essentially IOU's) in circulation and in case a major holder of US debt/dollars wanted to convert them to gold.

If the US were to go back on the gold standard tomorrow what would that do to the value of the dollar given that the total number of dollars in circulation would now have to equal the current US stockpile of gold?

The hyperinflation arguement is also a red herring. The US is not Germany post world war I nor is it current day greece. As long as their is no viable alternate "reserve currency" (which currently there is not) the demand for dollars will remain pretty constant (which is why countries continue to buy dollars even despite miserably low interest rates and all of the quantitative easing has not done anything to the value of the dollar one way or the other.
+21 # cordleycoit 2012-09-04 21:47
There are millions of us being gouged at the pump by the Pimps better known as the Parasite Princes and their Wall Street Igor's. There's no heart there folks, they are heartless. These are same guys who flew aircraft into buildings. Yet we will kiss their body parts for a fill up.
+8 # Rita Walpole Ague 2012-09-05 04:54
Love your PPP'er logo. And, so right you are about no hearts in those PPP'ers and WSIers. May I add: zero ethics.

Anyone recall the days when 'price fixing' was a No No, and the Addison Pacman (sp?) Act curtailed false advertising? Then, also worth recalling were regs. that were actually enforced (i.e. EPA), and so many more. Fracking would have died on the spot (instead of killing vast amounts of water and threatening lives of we the sheeple), would/could EPA still enforce regs.

The poor woman and her daughters are hardly alone in their grief. In '07, a dear African American man in Maryland grieved to me about his same problem - owning a recently purchased old truck that, with gas prices jumping through the ceiling, he could not afford to drive to work, since his wages were under the minimum where he worked at a restaurant on Herring Bay. Broke my heart then as it does now for this good mama. Doubt if she has access to mass transit any more than the poor MD man had.

I've added something to the great logo HEALTHCARE NOT WARFARE, and that's EARTHCARE NOT WARFARE. Add to that:
VILLAINAIRES, GO TO HELL and there it is, my 'wishful trinity'.
+9 # DaveM 2012-09-04 22:07
It does astonish me that, with the amount of money oil companies make, they allow commodity market speculators to take a "piece of the action" (I am of course making the assumption there is no connection between the two, wink wink).

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that we have no real choice at present as far as auto fuels are concerned. Corn-based ethanol has definitely NOT proven to be the solution that was promised, and research into production of ethanol from other sources (e.g. grass clippings) appears to be stagnant. There is also a virtual absence of vehicles on the road that will run on pure ethanol.

Meanwhile, as the author notes, the potential for fuel cells and electricity from renewable sources remains untapped. The latter need not require an effort on the scale he suggests (which, frankly, could be an ecological disaster in its own right). Electric cars are hitting the market, though they have a way to go before they serve most car owners' needs. The same applies to solar shingles, which replace ordinary roofing with "shingles" which generate electricity from the sun.

Reliability and price on both of these products continues to improve. At some point, put them together and we'll have a significant solution: renewable energy for automotive and household use. Promotion and yes, perhaps some government subsidy could bring both to the mass market in less than five years. about if we try it?
+4 # Johnny 2012-09-04 22:40
What a relief that Carl Gibson reassures us that the economic problems of the US have nothing to do with spending three trillion dollars to promote the expansion of Israel! God and Carl want us to fund the Chosen People!
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-09-05 09:20
Quoting Johnny:
What a relief that Carl Gibson reassures us that the economic problems of the US have nothing to do with spending three trillion dollars to promote the expansion of Israel! God and Carl want us to fund the Chosen People!


I completely oppose Israeli state policies and believe that Israel must give up all occupied territory. That being said though, US foreign aid to Israel is roughly $3 billion a year so where do you get this number of $3 trillion. And, the US has always done things abroad for its own benefit; period. If others benefit in the process fine but it is about building and maintaining US imperial power abroad. So, how does it help the US (or why should the US ruling class care) to "promote the expansion of Israel."?
0 # Johnny 2012-09-05 10:09
The wars for Israel do not help the US. They are not intended to. They are intended, among other things, to preserve the dollar as the only international currency, since the trillions the tiny group of banksters who run the world own are in dollars. The US war against Iraq had no other purpose than to eliminate Iraqi assistance to the Palestinian resistance. The war against Libya was a direct result of the Libyan government's plan for a gold-based African alternative to the dollar. The NATO war against Syria is the first phase in the war against Iran, because Iran supplies material aid to Hezbollah, which has enabled Lebanon to repel the aggression of Israel. The cost of those wars for Israel is more than $3 billion a year. It is trillions, and the people of the US pay for them. The purpose of the endless wars for Israel might be mere Nazi style racism, Jewish supremacism, but I suspect that the purpose of Jewish supremacism, like other forms of racism, and the endless US wars for and by Israel against its neighbors, is international chaos, itself, and thus the Israelis, themselves, are victims of the international elite's program to prevent peace from breaking out. Qui bono, from endless war and chaos?
0 # dkonstruction 2012-09-05 12:17
thanks for the resonse. Some of what you say i agree with but some i think misses the mark.

first, if the wars are intended to preserve the dollar then the wars do indeed help the US and are not about Israel which was my initial point. I would agree that the wars were about both oil as well as (petro) dollars so here i think we agree but again i don't think this has much if anything to do with Israel.

However, i think it is wrong to suggest that the war in Iraq was "to eliminate Iraqi assistance to the Palestinian resistance" rather than being about oil and petro dollars (Saddam has also raised the possibility of selling oil in euros instead of dollars).

ok. i understand where you are getting the $3 trillion figure from (the cost of the wars rather than the cost of aid to direct US foreign aid to Israel) but again i don't think we went to war with Iraq because of had much more to do with Iran (both our loss of Iran when the Shah fell as well as our potential loss of Iraq when Saddam turned away from the US).

As for Syria, i agree that this too is more about Iran but again i think it is more about our loss of Iran in the 70s (which we had relied upon to balance emerging arab powers again due to oil) and doesn't have much if anything to do with Israel.
+4 # chrisconnolly 2012-09-04 23:48
The corn based ethanol was little more than another corporate bamboozle on our tax coffers. The speculators would rather trash the whole of our economy for their short term gain than save it by allowing the market to balance. They are destroying the market that feeds them.
0 # robniel 2012-09-05 10:15
While the idea behind using ethanol as fuel had some merit (10% less gasoline to produce or import), technologically and economically ethanol produced from corn is a loser (and government subsidized). Other, non-food sources are potentially available and should be developed, but now big agriculture and the corn lobby is involved, so good luck.
+2 # SoCalStar 2012-09-04 23:57
YOU take the 100 miles of mirrors and you stuff them into Mississippi. We who live in the deserts are tired of East Coast city people coming into our home and thinking they can bulldoze our homeland and put up these monstrosities of supposed 'green' energy that is heavily paid for with our tax dollars. You do NOT see the pollution in the manufacturing process. We have to live with the consequences of these fake 'green' schemes ripping off our scarce water supplies to constantly clean these mirrors and solar panels. We are just saying NO. Rooftop solar on all houses, apartments and commercial buildings are the way to go. And you think that we would get 'free' energy just because companies build all this 'green' infrastructure? ?? Not a chance. The electric companies all have sweetheart deals with government giving them distribution monopolies for higher and higher rates of return on the backs of We The People.
+6 # DaveEwoldt 2012-09-05 00:30
While uncut is a good idea, it's dangerous when people start talking about things they know nothing about and obviously haven't researched even a little bit.

There is _no_ potential for fuel cells when it comes to powering our personal transportation pods, or as I call them our little global warmers. Fuel cells require platinum, platinum is a finite resource. Fuel cells also have a limited lifespan, roughly equivalent to a years worth of driving. Plus, 50% of a car's contribution to global warming comes from the extraction and processing of the raw materials, and the manufacturing process regardless of power source. The increased CAFE standards everyone wants to give Obama high fives for are kinda symbolic, and if they lead to more cars been driven more on more and wider roads, we're even further behind the eight ball.

One of those inconvenient truths of our times is that the price of gas at the pump should be about 4 times higher than it currently is were we to factor in all of the hidden costs we're only too happy to ignore, such as environmental and health externalities, the subsidies we give to just about the most profitable industries on the planet (running neck and neck with pharmaceuticals , anyway), and the costs of the world's largest and most expensive military and defense industry necessary to secure dwindling supplies of lower quality product.
-15 # Underledge 2012-09-05 02:30
A single mom with two children in a country which requires two breadwinners. Where is dad in this story. No child support? There is more to this story then has been given.
+8 # flippancy 2012-09-05 02:37
Only end users should be allowed to bid on oil and it should require payment in full within 24 hours. (including oil companies that run gas stations)

Speculation should be banned.
+1 # WillD 2012-09-05 03:06
This is absolutely disgusting - once again, but what are we going to do about it? All the analyses have been well made by now, so, where's the action?
+4 # grouchy 2012-09-05 03:42
What chances do we have to handle this as long as the corporations and banks essentially own us? How to tamper with the system that keeps them rich? So the question here is what to do--and that should keep some brains active for a while seeking a true solution.
+1 # dick 2012-09-05 05:50
Public OPTION is really quite a powerful notion. ATM machines at post offices for the simplest banking activities would create competitive freedom of choice. Access to Medicare buy-in would create competitive freedom of choice. Speculation free Uncle Sam gas would create competitive freedom of choice, even if expensive. The $$ doesn't have to go to speculators. I know GOPers won't approve, but the ball should START to roll the day after they lose this year's elections. Big Change takes time.
+2 # walt 2012-09-05 05:57
A simple question for us all:

Why aren't Americans in the street demanding a change? Will we once again just suck it up like so much else we endure?? And once again, Goldman Sachs and others are cited for this problem too!
+1 # wrknight 2012-09-05 06:19
Why bother asking candidates who they will work for when you already know the answers. They work for their patrons (who pay for their campaigns). They don't need to work for the voters who put them in office because the voters are so dumb they will swallow all the BS the candidates and their parties can produce.
-3 # MidwestTom 2012-09-05 06:42
Eliminate high speed trading, it accomplishes nothing and is not investing. eliminate derivative insurnace for more than one is actually exposed; create financial incentives for marriage and child birth tfor married couples. Stop the wars. Allow more drilling of oil which should allow us to pull al tropps from the middle east, and then stop sending money to all countries there. Require that all government employees making over #100,000 per year be citizens on only the United States.
-7 # MidwestTom 2012-09-05 06:57
I support an intercity church school that I attended years ago. The neighborhood has declined several levels since I was there, and now virtually all of the students come from single parent households. I know that this sounds harsh, but volunteering there one realizes that our welfare system has created a small but growing class of women who simply like having children, with virtually no concern about how they will be paid for. limiting the number of children from one women that welfare will support to no more than three would be a start. The school's finances are stretched to the limit with teachers earning half what public school pay, yet the children that do make it through do very well in High School.
0 # MidwestTom 2012-09-05 07:17
As we print more dollars to cover our deficit the value of each dollar goes down in value, and therefore the price of things we buy goes up. When we went off of the gold standard in 1972, the price of everything doubled within two years. Those income didn't double were were poorer.
0 # mrbadexample 2012-09-05 07:30
You lost me with hydrogen. Postcarbon Institute and other people with knowledge of energy issues are in agreement that Hydrogen is a joke. It takes 1.3 watts of energy input to create a single watt of hydrogen power (just because the pollution from burning that 1.3 watts of gas isn't visible doesn't mean it isn't there). There is no way to safely ship or store hydrogen fuel, which is both explosive and corrosive.

Larger point: the 'speculation' you're talking about is based on the fact that we have probably peaked in terms of oil production--eve rything we get out of the ground going forward is going to be vastly more expensive and of poor quality. Same with coal. Gasoline is going up in price because the places we'll get it from in the future (deepwater wells or places far off the transport grid) will cost us more per gallon. And our agriculture is completely dependent on oil--those pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers are going to be orders of magnitude more expensive.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next leftist. But the reality is that we've used up about half the earth's oil resources, and the rest will come at a prohibitive price.
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-09-05 08:05
When people say we need to ban "speculation" and derivatives they need to be clear on what this means.

Derivatives have existed for a long, long some ways going back to ancient times. the original derivatives were agricultural futures contracts which were good for farmers, retailers and consumers.

The question is whether someone should be allowed to purchase a futures contract for a commodity that they in fact do not (and never have any intention to) own. So, if you are a wheat farmer you could still buy a futures contract (a derivative) for wheat but if you were not an oil producer (or direct purchaser) you could not buy an oil futures contract.

This would help alot to stabilize prices on basic commodities but it is not the same as saying we need to do away with all derivatives and "speculation".. .it's a question of whether you own the underlying commodity so that the derivative (the futures contract) is truly a hedge against an unknown future which was the whole point of these things in the first place.
+3 # mrbadexample 2012-09-05 08:42
I have great sympathy for this young woman and her children. Larger point, though--gas is not going to be cheap in our lifetime again. We've gotten the cheap stuff out of the ground, and we're going to be competing with the Chinese and the Indians for every additional drop we can wring out of the shale deposits or the fracking ranges being put into Marcellus and Bakken. Same is true of coal--we got all the Anthracite out, and the stuff that's left is stuff the coal companies used to throw away--sulphurou s, not energy dense lignite.

Meanwhile, all anyone in this farking country seems to care about is whether we'll be able to run our farking cars. Can we keep suburbia? I'd hate to take the bus anywhere. Forget about cars--the world can't support a billion cars, which is where we're going. We're not going to be able to feed ourselves without fossil-fuel based fertilizer. And nobody in our two party clusterf**k is willing to talk about this.
-4 # JackB 2012-09-05 10:01
Ethanol is a gift from the green team. Turned out to create more pollution than it avoided. The green team doesn't give a damn about costs. If it raised the price of food corn - so what?

Short memories here. Divine Barry WANTS higher gas prices. Brought Chu on board & he advocated the higher prices so gas wouldn't be less expensive than alternative fuels. Barry wants his alternative fuels & it won't happen if gas is cheap. When the public started yelling (in an election year) Barry got religion - lower prices. Oddly Chu no longer wanted higher prices either. Amazing. They both changed their minds. Yeah, right. If Barry wins get a second job.

Wall Street has been speculating for decades. They are suddenly the ogres because Divine Barry's campaign needs it. Never forget. NOTHING is ever Barry's fault. Wall Street, Bush, Republicans, Israel - the list goes on & on.

Your higher gas prices are part of Barry's Change.
+3 # reiverpacific 2012-09-05 10:29
I'm actually concerned about gas an food rates which may well kill a mobile catering business I've been trying to build up, thankfully mostly local, so I can certainly relate closely with the lady exemplified in the article -and it's NOBODY'S GODAMN BUSINESS where "Dad" is! It's still tough to run a small business, child support or none; she is trying hard to survive independently and good on her.
So small business takes it in the neck again.
And of course, don't forget that it's the bankster criminals and their lobbyists who own much of YOUR representatives at Federal and State level, which is why they are unlikely to be reined-in without some serious changes in the current structure and as the article stated many more kindred spirits such as Bernie Sanders and perhaps Elizabeth Warren
Note that Barclay's has already been fined substantially in the UK for manipulation of interest rates and speculation, which is a start. They, Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock and others were threatened (All colluding under a system named LIBOR {London Interbank Offered Rate}) with being nationalized under Gordon Brown's regime and Northern Rock actually went under.
There are lawsuits on file here but the criminals are hiring the most high-powered law firms in the US to combat the Fed's, which will be a long drawn-out process, probably using YOUR taxes along the way.
And if the US/Israel attacks Iran, you ain't seen nuthin' yet!
+1 # JSRaleigh 2012-09-05 12:11
And they finagle the inflation numbers to "seasonally" adjust out the effects of food & fuel prices because they're so damn volatile. So the "cost of living" never keeps pace with what it really costs to live.
+3 # JetpackAngel 2012-09-05 15:26
I remember one day in my seventh grade health and wellness class (P.E.), where it was one of the days where we were off the gym floor and in a classroom reading from a textbook. I don't remember the topic of the time but I remember my instructor telling us he knew a guy who'd made an unbelievable breakthrough in herbicides: namely, if there was a weed that existed, there was a fungus that would kill specifically that and nothing else. When word of his research got out, Roundup bought all of his notes and then promptly destroyed them.

My instructor had heard other stories, of people inventing pantyhose that never ripped, tire rubber that never went bald or cracked, and things like that. But none of that research ever sees the light of day because it would cost the big companies money. I thought it was selfish back then and I still think the same today.
-2 # JGross001 2012-09-06 07:49
The leftist approach inevitably generates higher prices for food and energy. Obama himself admitted this. What hits directly at my wallet, and that of many others, is the manipulation of cost-of-living calculations. If you don't eat, and don't drive, inflation is not too bad, they say, so my social security check keeps decreasing in real value. So far, I can still eat and drive, but I know lots of retirees must be feeling the pinch.
0 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 08:16
Quoting JGross001:
The leftist approach inevitably generates higher prices for food and energy. Obama himself admitted this. What hits directly at my wallet, and that of many others, is the manipulation of cost-of-living calculations. If you don't eat, and don't drive, inflation is not too bad, they say, so my social security check keeps decreasing in real value. So far, I can still eat and drive, but I know lots of retirees must be feeling the pinch.

the leftist approach? what on earth does that mean? who exactly do you think is a "leftist". Obama? I wish it were true? Clinton...that' s a joke since he was the most "republican" democrat in decades if not ever....Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich...ok i would agree with those two but tell me how exactly either Sanders or Kucinich's "approach" would lead to higher prices. It simply ain't so and there is no evidence or "proof" that it is.
+2 # brenda 2012-09-06 13:10
American people are slowly but surely getting mad. By that I mean that all those filthy rich multi-millionai res and billionaires need to take notice of this. They can only get away with their conspiracy and treasonous plot one or two times. After that, people, including the Tea Party and Republican duped people, will start to wise up and bring their pitch forks and clubs to Washington, where the economic cancer is spreading faster than you can shake a stick at.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.