Frugal Living: Jul 31, 2007

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo scanning service?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9f598948386130fc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:47 am
From: PaPaPeng

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:28:42 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:

>"www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> wrote:
>
>>Why not buy a scanner on sale and do it yourself?
>
>No computer at home to hook scanner up to

Then what you really want to do is to copy the photos on a color
copier using photographic grade paper. Ask Kinko's or any self
service photocopy shop if they have a suitable copier. The color
pigments are polymer based and therefore permanent, unlike inkjets.
You can probably save quite a lot of money and effort by maximizing
the number of photos that can fit into one standard paper page. This
helps in organising your photo collection too. Another advantage is
you can enlarge selected photos and/or crop them.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 12:10 pm
From: me@privacy.net

PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Then what you really want to do is to copy the photos on a color
>copier using photographic grade paper.

I only need electronic files for the moment

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:42 pm
From: rick++

Kinkos rents such, but I dont know if that is cheapest.
I recall its by the hour.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Anti-Tax guys won -- round 2
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b15b2290838aeb55?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 10:16 am
From: Dennis

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:55:12 -0400, clams casino
<PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:

>Dennis wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:09 -0400, clams casino
>><PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
>>>tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
>>>to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
>>>$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
>>>shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
>>>brackets..
>>>
>>>Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
>>>where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
>>>subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
>>>who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
>>>is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
>>>every few years).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is the same old tired line. Of course someone (with lower
>>income) who pays less in taxes saves less from a tax break than
>>someone (with higher income) who pays more in taxes. Duh! They
>>didn't pay the taxes in the first place.
>>
>>Completely, totally, undeniably specious argument.
>>
>>Dennis (evil)
>>
>>
>
>Duh - they paid less taxes because they earned less. So why should they
>pay a higher rate (total taxes / income ) if they earn less?
>
>As a reference - Warren Buffet likes to point out, last year he only
>paid 17.7% of his gross in taxes, yet his secretary paid about 30%
>(about the average) .
>
>
>Don't get me wrong - government medical & housing subsidies have been
>very generous for me. I'm not turning down that welfare (tax transfer).
>
> I'm just realistic to see how the US tax system favors the higher paid
>over the lower paid.

Or, put another way: the US tax system gives tax breaks to those who
pay taxes over those who don't.

Yeah, you're right -- it makes sense.

Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 11:31 am
From: "dfr"

clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> Dennis wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:09 -0400, clams casino
>> <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be
>>> $10-15k/year in tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the
>>> wealthy). Most >$50k tend to get highly subsidized (tax free)
>>> medical whereas most below perhaps $50k have to pay for medical
>>> care with after tax income. That can shave a good $3-6k + /yr
>>> from income taxes for most in the upper brackets..
>>>
>>> Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing
>>> subsidies where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible
>>> resulting in their subsidized housing asset growing higher in value
>>> vs. the average person who can't afford as much house, not having
>>> that subsidy. The end result is a nifty tax-free savings (up to
>>> 500k) when sold (as frequently as every few years).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is the same old tired line. Of course someone (with lower
>> income) who pays less in taxes saves less from a tax break than
>> someone (with higher income) who pays more in taxes. Duh! They
>> didn't pay the taxes in the first place.
>>
>> Completely, totally, undeniably specious argument.
>>
>> Dennis (evil)
>>
>>
>
> Duh - they paid less taxes because they earned less. So why should
> they pay a higher rate (total taxes / income ) if they earn less?
>
> As a reference - Warren Buffet likes to point out, last year he only
> paid 17.7% of his gross in taxes, yet his secretary paid about 30%
> (about the average) .

That's what a progressive tax system is about.

And he pays a hell of a lot more tax in dollar terms than his secretary does too.

> Don't get me wrong - government medical & housing subsidies have been
> very generous for me. I'm not turning down that welfare (tax transfer).

> I'm just realistic to see how the US tax system favors the higher paid
> over the lower paid.

Pity it doesnt.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:50 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <GpGri.16176$g86.4794@newsfe14.lga>, clams casino wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>>
>> However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
>>not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
>
>2007 Federal income tax receipts = $1.5 trillion (1.2 individual + 0.3
>corporate)
>
>2007 military spending = $772 billion (699 billion defense + 73 billion
>vet benefits)
>
>military = 51% without considering interest on debt.

And what if that $1.5 trillion is increased to the $1.745 trillion that
Federal spending other than SS/Medicare/debt-interest adds up to?
Minus $35 billion for motor fuel tax supported spending is $1.71 billion,
and billion is about 45% of that.

>If one assumes interest should be rated across all debt, it actually
>increases to about 60%. The percentage is even higher if one assumes
>all the Iraq invasion costs have been borrowed (has there been any new
>tax to pay for any of this relatively new expense - if not, it's all
>borrowed money).

To the nearest billion, 2007 interest on national debt was $244 billion
according to the above Wiki article. I would think the percentage of that
to be blamed on the military would be the same as average percentage of
non-SS/Medicare/debt-interest Federal spending being spent on military
during the big national debt growth years of the administrations of
Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and the first term of Clinton.
Percentage figures in all the Federal budget pie charts I see have
generally made only minor shifts since Carter's first budget. So I would
say percentage of national debt interest to blame on military is also not
too far from 45%.

I consider it untruthful to say military spending is to blame for
51% (59% including 45% of interest on debt for past military spending) of
our income tax burden, unless you would agree that the $938 billion spent
on domestic programs excluding fuel tax spanding and SS/Medicare is to be
blamed for 62.5% of our income tax burden (71.5% including 55% of interest
on debt for past non-SS/Medicaid domestic spending not supported by fuel
taxes).

>Obviously this assumes only the federal income taxes pays for military
>where SS, Medicare, gas excise taxes, etc are also collected, but pay
>only for there intended purpose. It can be argued that a portion of the
>gift, excise, customs, etc taxes also go to military, but there are
>also indirect military expenses not under defense that should also be
>considered which makes an exact calculation near impossible.
>
>Point is, nearly half (likely more) of the federal incomes taxes go just
>for military purposes..

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sexual fascism and the Mark Foley scandel
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6862460254a8d2be?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 10:22 am
From: "Giegelherts"

"Sniper .308" <me@my.desk> schreef in bericht
news:e7vi83daaaaqpfqtv73lnjvvao5htdb90i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:23:45 -0700, bobandcarole
> <bobandcarole777@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good little bitch, keep tap dancing for me and prove you are a
> worthless, spineless, illiterate bitch
>>
>>You will find that out this summer when I arrive on your door step
>>Blob, People at AOL are quite helpful" --Sniper. 308

Your Tr (Tone Rate) looks like more than 40.

How about tapdancing on a rock beat which will knock your socks off.

:-)

Greetz
Wim

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Living on $1000 budget per month? with a wife and a kid
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5c479f986ad135c3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 11:25 am
From: "Rod Speed"

godzilla100@gmail.com wrote:

> Check out any of the following:

> www.xxxxxxx.blogspot.com
> www.xxxxxxxxxxx.blogspot.com
> www.xxxxxxxxx.blogspot.com

> Pls support us by viewing the ads.

Fuck off. No please, that's an order.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Access FREE Satellite TV on your PC

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/881989f31751c8e9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 11:29 am
From: madrid p

Instantly Turn your Computer into a Super TV

* Watch all your favorite shows on your Computer & TV!
* Channels you can't get any other place in the U.S.A!
* Watch from anywhere in the world!
* Save 1000's of $$$ over many years on cable and satellite bills
* INSTANT DOWNLOAD
* And much, much more!

For More Details: http://tvonpc.7p.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How I Made Some Extra Money
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/560d9447dc59ba9e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 11:31 am
From: Millhaven

Sometimes I have an additional source of income. My uncle is a long
haul trucker and is often gone for days at a time, while having sole
custody of his 15 year old son who is a typical latchkey kid only
sometimes for days at a time. Not even sure if that's legal but my
uncle leaves him plenty of food, and most importantly, money.

My cousin hates going to school. Not a good student, already falling
in with a bad crowd, possibly even already using drugs. As his older
cousin, I feel it's my responsibility to help. I told him if he really
doesn't want to school, all he has to do is pay me $5 every time he
doesn't want to go and I will call the school pretending to be his
father to say he's sick and can't go.

I made over $200 off this kid last year. I just hope we aren't
overdoing it and cause some sort of investigation. But it's great for
extra beer money. Told him the next time Motley Crue goes on tour I am
"giving" him AIDS so I can afford a ticket. What do you all think?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 12:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Cant even manage a viable troll, or anything else at all, either.

Millhaven <millhaven@intergate.com> wrote:
> Sometimes I have an additional source of income. My uncle is a long
> haul trucker and is often gone for days at a time, while having sole
> custody of his 15 year old son who is a typical latchkey kid only
> sometimes for days at a time. Not even sure if that's legal but my
> uncle leaves him plenty of food, and most importantly, money.
>
> My cousin hates going to school. Not a good student, already falling
> in with a bad crowd, possibly even already using drugs. As his older
> cousin, I feel it's my responsibility to help. I told him if he really
> doesn't want to school, all he has to do is pay me $5 every time he
> doesn't want to go and I will call the school pretending to be his
> father to say he's sick and can't go.
>
> I made over $200 off this kid last year. I just hope we aren't
> overdoing it and cause some sort of investigation. But it's great for
> extra beer money. Told him the next time Motley Crue goes on tour I am
> "giving" him AIDS so I can afford a ticket. What do you all think?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:45 pm
From: Al Bundy

On Jul 31, 2:31 pm, Millhaven <millha...@intergate.com> wrote:
> Sometimes I have an additional source of income. My uncle is a long
> haul trucker and is often gone for days at a time, while having sole
> custody of his 15 year old son who is a typical latchkey kid only
> sometimes for days at a time. Not even sure if that's legal but my
> uncle leaves him plenty of food, and most importantly, money.
>
> My cousin hates going to school. Not a good student, already falling
> in with a bad crowd, possibly even already using drugs. As his older
> cousin, I feel it's my responsibility to help. I told him if he really
> doesn't want to school, all he has to do is pay me $5 every time he
> doesn't want to go and I will call the school pretending to be his
> father to say he's sick and can't go.
>
> I made over $200 off this kid last year. I just hope we aren't
> overdoing it and cause some sort of investigation. But it's great for
> extra beer money. Told him the next time Motley Crue goes on tour I am
> "giving" him AIDS so I can afford a ticket. What do you all think?

Gee, that would be more than 40 absences, more than any school system
would allow.
I think you are missing the boat by not marketing your service to the
cousin's friends or scoring some drugs from them. And does your
cousin have any female friends? I see a number of possibilities there
too with the house available. Anybody have a movie camera?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ninety Percent Off Or More!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c7bc1f1bae68adcb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 10:57 am
From: Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG

In article <p5wri.504$qa3.79@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>,
sfgeorge@paccbell.net says...
> clams casino wrote:

> > George Grapman wrote:

> >> BeaForoni@msn.com wrote:

> >>> Has anyone been to UBid.com and seen the watches up for bid? They have
> >>> $4,000 watches for around fifty bucks. I am not sure what a Rousseau
> >>> Deluxe is, but it has got to be a real deal. I have a friend that buys
> >>> them, prints out the manufacturers web page and then sells them in
> >>> bars. Says he doubles his money or more.

> >> If is lists at $4,000 and is sold online got $50 it certainly must
> >> be "the real deal".

> > Do they have any land for sale at these prices?

> Yes, and for a limited time they throw in a bridge.

Don't you get those spams for watches? They are very clear that
they are pushing "replicas." I wonder if some folks buy the
fakes from the spammers, and then flog them on auction sites,
claiming it is real.

--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How long to build a house from Craigslist "free" materials?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/009019a2521ac2e0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 10:57 am
From: Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG

In article
<1185811024.737064.209200@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
seerialmom@yahoo.com says...
> I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say you
> inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
> plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
> build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
> construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
> to test my idea.

I just saw somebody post to misc.rural about something similar.

The claim was to have purchased a used port-a-loo.
Specifically, the larger type that is designed to be wheelchair
accessible. Cost was allegedly twenty-five bucks.

Honestly, I have seen those, and could live in one if on a low
enough budget.

The story seemed a bit dodgy, since the idea is that the
actual toilet is still useable. Without consideration that the
contributions just drop into a tank which needs to be pumped out
fairly often.

--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 10:57 am
From: Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG

In article
<1185832733.555569.89430@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
MSfortune@mcpmail.com says...
> On Jul 30, 11:57 am, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say you
> > inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
> > plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
> > build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
> > construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
> > to test my idea.

> I like to dream too, unassisted by foreign substances.
> I see all types of vehicle parts along the road. Some core items like
> an engine would be difficult to acquire unless you found an abandoned
> vehicle. I wonder if some supreme being could take a snapshot of the
> world or country's inventory of road kill parts and assemble something
> that resembled a vehicle. If he/she/it's a supreme being, they could
> make the parts fit and even run, but that would be violating the rule
> of my dream.

Didn't you ever hear that Johnny Cash song about an auto factory
worker who smuggled out parts for years, gradually building an
entire car?

--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 12:13 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG wrote:
> In article
> <1185811024.737064.209200@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> seerialmom@yahoo.com says...
>> I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say
>> you inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already
>> has plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take
>> to build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
>> construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of
>> land to test my idea.
>
>
> I just saw somebody post to misc.rural about something similar.
>
> The claim was to have purchased a used port-a-loo.
> Specifically, the larger type that is designed to be wheelchair
> accessible. Cost was allegedly twenty-five bucks.
>
> Honestly, I have seen those, and could live in one if on a low
> enough budget.
>
> The story seemed a bit dodgy, since the idea is that the
> actual toilet is still useable. Without consideration that the
> contributions just drop into a tank which needs to be pumped out
> fairly often.

Not that often actually with just one person using it.

Could get a bit smelly to 'live' in tho.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 6:21 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)

In article <MPG.211896e778d4e05c989c5d@nntp.aioe.org>,
Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG <Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
>In article
><1185832733.555569.89430@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>MSfortune@mcpmail.com says...
>> On Jul 30, 11:57 am, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say you
>> > inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
>> > plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
>> > build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
>> > construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
>> > to test my idea.

That would primarily depend upon when you were able to get things. You'd
have to get things as you could, then store all of it until you have
everything you need before you start. Once you start, depends upon how
much experience you have and how much help you can call upon.

>> I like to dream too, unassisted by foreign substances.
>> I see all types of vehicle parts along the road. Some core items like
>> an engine would be difficult to acquire unless you found an abandoned
>> vehicle. I wonder if some supreme being could take a snapshot of the
>> world or country's inventory of road kill parts and assemble something
>> that resembled a vehicle. If he/she/it's a supreme being, they could
>> make the parts fit and even run, but that would be violating the rule
>> of my dream.

>Didn't you ever hear that Johnny Cash song about an auto factory
>worker who smuggled out parts for years, gradually building an
>entire car?

I've seen a Cadillac that a fan of his built in line with the song,
then gave to John. John said the title for the car was 1/2" thick.

The song is "One Piece At A Time".

Gary

--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
"release embarassing recordings...". What, he has a copy of her album?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 7:26 pm
From: Rick

Seerialmom wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 3:50 pm, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 11:57 am, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say
> > you> inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
> > > plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
> > > build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
> > > construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
> >
> > > to test my idea.
> >
> > Years ago I used to see articles on this kind of project in the
> > alternative magazines. As I remember the typical story, it usually
> > took several years of serious scrounging to accumulate enough bits and
> > pieces, but now and then the homebuilder would start with out with a
> > place to sleep on the land, like a (travel-) trailer or a shed, stay
> > on the land and build his dwelling while foraging for the necessary
> > pieces.
> > otoh, we have an acquaintance who has been accumulating
> > miscellaneous building parts for 28 years. He has a nice big semi-
> > rural lot, maybe 2 acres, that used to be neatly landscaped but now
> > has 3 storage buildings on it filled with used plywood, windows,
> > balusters, staircases, doors, piles of plumbing pipe, piles of
> > plumbing fixtures, and anything else he could get free or cheap.
> > There are squirrels, mice, rats, and probably snakes in it because
> > nobody has moved the stuff for decades. He's going to build another
> > house "some day".
>
> Ugh...don't want to do that. But I do think having the trailer to
> live in while the house is being built would work. To be efficient
> I'd think only collecting the stuff you'll use in the next week would
> work. For example the starting with the foundation (forget about
> cement slab...odds are you wouldn't get enough "leftover" to pour it)
> and framing first. come to think of it Kathy Bates had a movie that
> was similar to this except she just refurbed what seemed to be a barn/
> shack into a house.

Yeah, but that's the rub: "Free" doesn't always come in the logical
order you need it. And you might need "it" in the next week, but may not
get "it" for six months. You would have to plan a lot further ahead than
that because the last thing you would want, for example, is the plywood
up on the roof - but no shingles in sight for another six weeks. Or get
the thing all framed and sided - but free doors or windows are not in
sight yet to prevent vandalism (by people or critters) or water damage
to what you have already accomplished.

Theoretically, it's an interesting idea. But to really accomplish it in
a reasonable time frame I think you'd have to go slightly beyond "free"
and get creative with low costs options as needed too.

Rick

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How does one Reduce or Suspend thier Child Support
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ec155f2ae812643f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 1:37 pm
From: "Daniel T."

timeOday <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:
> ChairMan wrote:
>
> > and if can't or won't support what you produce, keep it it your damn pants
> > or STFU
>
> It's odd that people take that attitude towards men but not women. Oh,
> you didn't want that baby after all? Go ahead and kill it. Or not,
> your choice. No need to ask the father or anything, it's none of his
> business -- except to pay for whatever you decide of course.

Agreed, the law is rather unfair in this regard.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Controversy Over iPhone Battery Replacement
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/89f5fbc9f3e0c474?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:18 pm
From: Joe

A controversy over the Apple's iPhone battery replacement program has
come to light at the end of July as a consumer protection agency and a
non-profit organization for consumer and taxpayer rights have written
letters to Apple requesting a review of its iPhone repair policies.

To read the full article, please go to or click on:
http://www.contactomagazine.com/computers/iphonebattery0707.htm

More Computer News:
http://www.contactomagazine.com/computers

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:41 pm
From: rick++

Any idiot knew this was case before buying an iPhone.
It was widely disclosed and in the accompanying documentation.
Some of the iPods are very difficult to change battery.

Why in frugal? IPhones arent frugal yet. Maybe next year.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is absolutely no downside to this program!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3cae2734d2ff9d48?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:52 pm
From: Al Bundy

On Jul 29, 8:38 pm, rutgerskevin <kevin_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Could you use some extra money? I know what you are thinking, this is
> just going to be about some kind of scam. I felt the same way until I
> actually tried Cash Crate. Don't take my word for the legitimacy of
> Cash Crate, I urge you to read the public forum on the site before you
> join. You will be able to read about common pitfalls, complaints, and
> countless success stories. Curious? Click below.
>
WOWIE
Let's increase the minimum wage to $75/Hr.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Quit Smoking Right Now!!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/48e6c983b995f6c0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 5:13 pm
From: So_Boya@yahoo.com

On Jul 29, 11:31 am, michellej <johnsonmb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For all of us smokers it is getting harder and harder to smoke in
> public places. I heard that one state wants to ban smoking in your OWN
> car. Now, I think that's pushing it. People can text message but they
> can't talk on a cell phone and now they can't smoke.
>
> Due to the rising costs of cigaretts and soon we won't be able to
> smoke outside I decided to quit. I put together a list of ideas that
> helped me. Take a look and leave a comment:
>
> http://rightnowquitsmoking.blogspot.com

http://tinyurl.com/yv2tw7

Poor Broken Spirited "michellej" <johnsonmblue@yahoo.com
wrote: " I 'm out of cigarette money" but she see's the links
right on the group to save her from the tax man.....
Only $2.00 a pack just like in Tennesee

For all of us smokers it is getting harder and harder to smoke in
public places. I heard that one state wants to ban smoking in your OWN
car. Now, I think that's pushing it. People can text message but they
can't talk on a cell phone and now they can't smoke.

Due to the rising costs of cigaretts and soon we won't be able to
smoke outside I decided to quit. I put together a list of ideas that
helped me. Take a look and leave a comment:

http://rightnowquitsmoking.bullspot.com

Quitters never win ask Vietnam
Join the weight Watchers and Quit...
Ross Perot..ran for president , and Quit...

For sea or seaver sham for save america
for change, for shame, and can a finsh...
can a finish!
Well maybe some people need to quit..!!

Be Sure to post in misc.consumers.frugal-living
Lots of Cheapskates over there quitting on life.

With all the old stale food the eat their breath
stinks just like the other end.

Make a little money on the quick and easy.
MichelleJ...Easy Street is closed for repairs.

Butt Linger we want some on our finger !

So Boya

==============================================================================
TOPIC: FIND YOUR PERFECT LOVER, IT FREE!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/52eb05d1a41f0110?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 5:31 pm
From: annis

FIND YOUR PERFECT LOVER, IT FREE!

www.shop4love.com

I found my soulmate here....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Miniature Frozen Pizzas
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f50f543cc0dc2653?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 6:16 pm
From: Logan Shaw

Chloe wrote:
> Dei Fratelli sells a pizza sauce in a can designed for storing in the fridge
> after you open it--and it stays good for several weeks. I think it makes a
> great tasting pizza-like snack spread on a toasted English muffin, topped
> with a few slices of pepperoni and a handful of grated mozzarella, and run
> under the broiler for a couple minutes.

As long as we're talking about pseudo-pizza snack recipes, I do just about
the same thing, except I use regular tomato paste (comes in small cans, not
too watery), and I use as big a flour tortilla as fits in my toaster oven
(and as thick as I can find) as the crust. I put the toaster oven on its
hottest setting and preheat it, then cook the thing until it's just shy of
burnt. Often the crust even puffs up and forms bubbles like a real pizza
crust does (which is one of my favorite parts of pizza).

It's nice to know about a pizza sauce that works well for storing unused
portions in the fridge. With my luck, they won't have it at my grocery
store, but I'll look for it in case they do.

- Logan

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 12:09 am
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <PNvri.42327$6K3.24377@newsfe10.phx>, clams casino wrote:

(subtroll that I normally avoid getting caught agreeing with wrote)
>>Its still WAY out even on that basis.
>>
>>>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>
>>Thats nothing like an unbiased source.
>>
>Granted, they have an agenda, but it's hard to dispute their numbers as
>they are merely taken out of the published budget.

I have countered already on basis of NASA 2007 budget request details
not supporting the warresisters claiming their claim of half of NASA's
budget being military, and on basis of 80% of interest [payments on
national debt being military-blamable. On basis of considering what the
USA's national debt is now and what it was 30 years ago even after
adjusting for inflation, and considering what percent of the Federal
budget in the past 30 years is from military spending even if debt
payments and Social Sercurity are excluded.

> The big difference,
>as they clearly point out, is that the government tends to lump SS and
>other sources of tax revenue with the income taxes and then break down
>the overall expenditures. I found it more useful to see where the
>income taxes are going, exclusive of the FICA, excise and other taxes.

Exclude spending programs that FICA and other program-specific taxes
as opposed to income taxes are supposed to fund, and their spending is
only majority military according to a source that stretches "facts"
*bigtime*.

>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being
>overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax, conveniently
>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>overall tax burden. But when it comes time to show how the
>government spends the taxes, they like to group all the taxes together.

I also note how high income people have a lower tax burden... by paying
lower-rate on capital gains and dividends enjoyed more by higher income
folks, and likely paying lower percentage of income on more-regressive
taxes such as home property taxes, gasoline taxes, and sales taxes.

>Of course the biggest sham is the use of excess FICA taxes to pay for
>non SS uses.

FICA has experienced ability to "run a surplus", and Lyndon Johnson
presided over FICA/SS getting included into the "general federal budget"
to improve the "federal bottom line".

I have noted that SS-excluding Federal budget ran a surplus during a
fiscal year presided over by Clinton.

I have noted Federal budget bottom line benefiting from SS surplus
mitigating non-SS deficit. However, I have noted that changing Federal
bottom line from red to black in only 2-3 of the past at-least 30-plus
years, during Clinton's second term.

However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:01 am
From: clams casino

dfr wrote:

>
>
>
>>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being overtaxed tend to refer only
>>to federal income tax, conveniently
>>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>overall tax burden.
>>
>>
>
>Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
>generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax does.
>
>

?? Guess it's time to end this discussion. You are obviously either
paying games with me or are totally ignorant of the US tax structure.

Hint - Federal income is only about 1/3 of the overall tax burden.
Granted, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their taxes in income
tax, but average and below average tax payers pay a higher percentage in
FICA, sales, excise & property taxes. Many pay more gross taxes in FICA
than federal income tax. When all taxes are taken into consideration,
most all pay about 28-32% of gross income in taxes where the wealthy
tend to be on the lower end of that range.

You obviously need to read up on total tax burdens and stop playing the
selected federal-income-only tax game.

Bye.

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:19 am
From: clams casino

Don Klipstein wrote:

>
>
>
>>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being
>>overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax, conveniently
>>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>overall tax burden. But when it comes time to show how the
>>government spends the taxes, they like to group all the taxes together.
>>
>>
>
> I also note how high income people have a lower tax burden... by paying
>lower-rate on capital gains and dividends enjoyed more by higher income
>folks, and likely paying lower percentage of income on more-regressive
>taxes such as home property taxes, gasoline taxes, and sales taxes.
>
>

Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
brackets..

Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
every few years).

Point is, gross income for the wealthy can be much higher than simply
using their salary as the divisor when figuring percent tax burdens.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:30 am
From: clams casino

Don Klipstein wrote:

>In article <dFtri.42024$kK1.8883@newsfe14.phx>, clams casino wrote in
>part:
>
>
>
>>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>
>>
>
> This pie chart claims military spending being 51% of federal outlays.
>
>

This is not true - read it again. They are claiming its about half of
the federal income tax is used for military where other sources of
revenue are excluded because they are specifically spent / collected
elsewhere (gas taxes, FICA, medicare, etc).

> This includes blaming 80% of the interest on the national debt on
>military spending. I find that false since past Federal spending
>excluding then-past debt interest was much less than 80% for military.
>
>

Agree - it probably should be in balance with the military expenditures,
although it can be argued that the Iraq war (and previous wars) were
primarily paid for using borrowed money.

Is there any doubt that there would be significantly less federal debt
if GW hadn't invaded Iraq?

Fact -the Iraq invasion is costing future tax payers about 200M / day -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/ - (plus interest - all borrowed
money).

see

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

how the total cost is building up.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:48 am
From: "dfr"

clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> dfr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are
>>> being overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax,
>>> conveniently omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>> overall tax burden.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
>> generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax
>> does.
>
> ?? Guess it's time to end this discussion.

Nope.

> You are obviously either paying games with me or are totally ignorant of the US tax structure.

Or you hate having the problems with that >50% of income
tax spent on the military exposed as the fraud it always was.

> Hint - Federal income is only about 1/3 of the overall tax burden.

Irrelevant to that fundamental point about progressive and regressive taxes.

> Granted, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their taxes in income tax, but average and below
> average tax payers pay a higher percentage in FICA, sales, excise & property taxes.

Lie with property taxes which leave the rest for dead.

AND we happen to be discussing federal taxes, not taxes in general anyway.

> Many pay more gross taxes in FICA than federal income tax. When all taxes are taken into
> consideration, most all pay about 28-32% of gross income in taxes where the wealthy tend to be on
> the lower end of that range.

Pity about the total dollar value of the taxes they pay.

> You obviously need to read up on total tax burdens and stop playing the selected
> federal-income-only tax game.

Pity we happened to be discussing federal income tax.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 6:02 am
From: clams casino

Don Klipstein wrote:

>
> However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
>not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

2007 Federal income tax receipts = $1.5 trillion (1.2 individual + 0.3
corporate)

2007 military spending = $772 billion (699 billion defense + 73 billion
vet benefits)

military = 51% without considering interest on debt.

If one assumes interest should be rated across all debt, it actually
increases to about 60%. The percentage is even higher if one assumes
all the Iraq invasion costs have been borrowed (has there been any new
tax to pay for any of this relatively new expense - if not, it's all
borrowed money).

Obviously this assumes only the federal income taxes pays for military
where SS, Medicare, gas excise taxes, etc are also collected, but pay
only for there intended purpose. It can be argued that a portion of the
gift, excise, customs, etc taxes also go to military, but there are
also indirect military expenses not under defense that should also be
considered which makes an exact calculation near impossible.

Point is, nearly half (likely more) of the federal incomes taxes go just
for military purposes..

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:42 am
From: Dennis

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:09 -0400, clams casino
<PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:

>Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
>tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
>to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
>$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
>shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
>brackets..
>
>Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
>where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
>subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
>who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
>is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
>every few years).

This is the same old tired line. Of course someone (with lower
income) who pays less in taxes saves less from a tax break than
someone (with higher income) who pays more in taxes. Duh! They
didn't pay the taxes in the first place.

Completely, totally, undeniably specious argument.

Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:52 am
From: Dennis

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:14:00 -0400, clams casino
<PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:

>Dennis wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:34:57 -0400, clams casino
>><PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Chloe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's the federal government
>>>>doing involved in either, except perhaps in a limited, quality-control kind
>>>>of way?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If the highways were left entirely up to the states, I'm sure we'd we'd
>>>still have a partial interstate network.
>>>
>>>Places like AL, NC and a host of other states would likely never have
>>>built their portion of the interstate system which is crucial for the
>>>interstate flow of goods.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>All well and good. What have they done for me lately?
>>
>>Dennis (evil)
>>
>>
>Bought anything lately that was delivered by truck? Arrived into the US
>by ship?
>
>I'm guessing you'd be a whole lot happier where they have no taxes.
>When are you leaving?

Nice tap dance. I never said no taxes. I asked what we gain from
sending tax money to DC and then getting it back, versus doing it on a
more local level.

Please try to keep up.

Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:55 am
From: clams casino

Dennis wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:09 -0400, clams casino
><PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
>>tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
>>to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
>>$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
>>shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
>>brackets..
>>
>>Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
>>where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
>>subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
>>who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
>>is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
>>every few years).
>>
>>
>
>This is the same old tired line. Of course someone (with lower
>income) who pays less in taxes saves less from a tax break than
>someone (with higher income) who pays more in taxes. Duh! They
>didn't pay the taxes in the first place.
>
>Completely, totally, undeniably specious argument.
>
>Dennis (evil)
>
>

Duh - they paid less taxes because they earned less. So why should they
pay a higher rate (total taxes / income ) if they earn less?

As a reference - Warren Buffet likes to point out, last year he only
paid 17.7% of his gross in taxes, yet his secretary paid about 30%
(about the average) .

Don't get me wrong - government medical & housing subsidies have been
very generous for me. I'm not turning down that welfare (tax transfer).

I'm just realistic to see how the US tax system favors the higher paid
over the lower paid.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:19 am
From: Dennis

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:20:25 GMT, "Tockk" <tock1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well, if push comes to shove (I never knew what that phrase meant, but it's
>fun) it shouldn't be too difficult to put up a National Sales Tax. And for
>stuff that rich folks buy overseas, they'd have to pay an import tarriff on
>everything they bring into the country.
> -- As bad as that system would probably work, it can't possibly be any
>worse than the current Income Tax.

In terms of rates, these days I am paying about the lowest federal
income taxes that I have seen since my student days. Somewhere
between 5 and 6 percent of gross income. (And I don't even have a
mortgage to write off!) I pay way more in other (local and state)
taxes.

But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
tax/VAT.

Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 1:15 am
From: "Bob F"

"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185840876.532805.117940@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 3:50 pm, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 11:57 am, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say
>> you> inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already has
>> > plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take to
>> > build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items. I often seen
>> > construction/remodel leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land
>>
>> > to test my idea.
>>
>> Years ago I used to see articles on this kind of project in the
>> alternative magazines. As I remember the typical story, it usually
>> took several years of serious scrounging to accumulate enough bits and
>> pieces, but now and then the homebuilder would start with out with a
>> place to sleep on the land, like a (travel-) trailer or a shed, stay
>> on the land and build his dwelling while foraging for the necessary
>> pieces.
>> otoh, we have an acquaintance who has been accumulating
>> miscellaneous building parts for 28 years. He has a nice big semi-
>> rural lot, maybe 2 acres, that used to be neatly landscaped but now
>> has 3 storage buildings on it filled with used plywood, windows,
>> balusters, staircases, doors, piles of plumbing pipe, piles of
>> plumbing fixtures, and anything else he could get free or cheap.
>> There are squirrels, mice, rats, and probably snakes in it because
>> nobody has moved the stuff for decades. He's going to build another
>> house "some day".
>
> Ugh...don't want to do that. But I do think having the trailer to
> live in while the house is being built would work. To be efficient
> I'd think only collecting the stuff you'll use in the next week would
> work. For example the starting with the foundation (forget about
> cement slab...odds are you wouldn't get enough "leftover" to pour it)
> and framing first. come to think of it Kathy Bates had a movie that
> was similar to this except she just refurbed what seemed to be a barn/
> shack into a house.
>

There would be long gaps where some necessary component would not appear,
killing weeks at a time of work. You would need to be looking several months
ahead to acquire things in a timely manner. It took me about 8 months from the
first part to the last to acquire the lumber and roofing for my 13' x 24' wood
shed. The (repairable) nailgun came a couple years earlier. I did have to buy
nails, a few bolts, and some caulk for holes in the roofing metal.

A house would take a lot longer, unless craigslist is a lot busier where you
are.

And who would want to live in the resulting house?

I re-did a bathroom a while back. The toilet and sink faucet came as freebies. I
was going to use the sink that came with the faucet, but realized on inspection
that it had scratches I wouldn't want. So I spent the extra $100. After building
a mud-set shower, and tiling the shower and counter with new tile, it was worth
the extra. The Durock was from freecycle, except one sheet. All the hidden
plumbing was new materials - no scrimping there. I think some balance is
advisable. Some of this kind of thing should be considered long term
investment.

Craigslist and freecycle together provide me with many needs and desires for
free or cheap, making less available needs much more affordable (Like this
really nice computer).

Bob

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 7:19 am
From: "Bill"

It is quite expensive to drive a pick-up. I would think that in some cases,
you would be paying more for materials if there are few materials and the
pick-up spot is far away.

I go through this all the time. Is it worth it to drive further, get a lower
price on something, yet pay $50 for gas for the truck?

If I'm paying $30 more to buy it locally, then would be least expensive to
buy here.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 8:04 am
From: A Veteran

In article <1185840608.208148.271490@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 30, 12:19 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...let's say
> > > you inherited an acre of land, free and clear. Presuming it already
> > > has plumbing/sewer/electrical coming to it...how long it might take
> > > to build a house out of just craiglist 'free" items.
> >
> > Impossible to say, how long depends on how fussy you are
> > about the house being built and what is discarded in your area.
> >
> > > I often seen construction/remodel leftovers.
> >
> > We often see old houses free for removal. It isnt that hard to shift
> > an entire house from one place to another when its timber framed.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I just wish I had a free acre of land to test my idea.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That's true too about the free houses. Unfortunately it's the getting
> it from point a to point b that costs. But presuming you're an
> eclectic sort and don't have to have "perfect" colored tiles or other
> materials, it'd be interesting to see how long it would take just
> collecting the stuff with a pickup.

We did get a "free" pick-up on CraigsList.
Well, It was a VW van and we cut the back off it. And it cost something
in paying some back years of registration. But it hauled 21 "I" beams
jest fine! ya know wood ones.

--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Autoresponder is best way to Make Money????????
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e9a6075118b9ca68?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 1:40 am
From: duke

Autoresponder is best way to Make Money????????

How Your Autoresponder Email Service Will Provide a Tool for Sending
Out Unlimited Follow Up Emails

http://tinyurl.com/2n594t

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:02 am
From: "godzilla100@gmail.com"

On Jul 31, 2:40 am, duke <sitinoora...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Autoresponder is best way to Make Money????????
>
> How Your Autoresponder Email Service Will Provide a Tool for Sending
> Out Unlimited Follow Up Emails
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2n594t

Check out any of the following:

www.godzillachai.blogspot.com
www.patientking.blogspot.com
www.jazmanian.blogspot.com

Pls support us by viewing the ads.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:32 am
From: clams casino

Rick wrote:

>clams casino wrote:
>
>
>>George Grapman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>BeaForoni@msn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Has anyone been to UBid.com and seen the watches up for bid? They have
>>>>$4,000 watches for around fifty bucks. I am not sure what a Rousseau
>>>>Deluxe is, but it has got to be a real deal. I have a friend that buys
>>>>them, prints out the manufacturers web page and then sells them in
>>>>bars. Says he doubles his money or more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If is lists at $4,000 and is sold online got $50 it certainly must
>>>be "the real deal".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do they have any land for sale at these prices?
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, but you have to transport it yourself witin 10 days of purchase.
>
>
so shipping / handing is not included?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pension Plan question
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/96ed02fb102b3995?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:32 am
From: Neil Jones

Hello,

I have worked for a major corporation in the past when then still
offered their pension plan along with the 401K plan. I lost my job with
that company after 8 years of working for them. There is some pension
plan money for those years of service. Now, I am 46 years old. Is it
possible to withdraw that pension plan money without being penalized? I
know 401K does penalize you for early withdrawal. Is it the same rule
for company pension plan as well?

Also, is it possible to transfer the pension plan money into some
investment account (stocks etc)? Is it good to leave it with the same
company that is managing the fund or move it to my new company's 401K plan?

Thank you in advance for any advice/pointers and help.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 3:46 am
From: "Travis Jordan"

"Neil Jones" wrote...
> I have worked for a major corporation in the past when then still offered
> their pension plan along with the 401K plan. I lost my job with that
> company after 8 years of working for them. There is some pension plan
> money for those years of service. Now, I am 46 years old. Is it possible
> to withdraw that pension plan money without being penalized? I know 401K
> does penalize you for early withdrawal. Is it the same rule for company
> pension plan as well?

Was the pension plan (technically this is a "defined benefit" plan)
traditional or portable? Most likely it is the former, and in this case you
do not have access to it until you reach retirement age as set forth in the
plan description. Usually this will be your normal retirement age which
could be 62 or higher. Your plan might provide for monthly payments, a
lump-sum option, or even no payment at all depending on the specifics of
your employment and the provisions of the plan.

Contact your previous employer and ask for a copy of their pension plan
description.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 5:31 am
From: clams casino

Neil Jones wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have worked for a major corporation in the past when then still
> offered their pension plan along with the 401K plan. I lost my job
> with that company after 8 years of working for them. There is some
> pension plan money for those years of service. Now, I am 46 years
> old. Is it possible to withdraw that pension plan money without being
> penalized?

Typically, you must start pension withdrawals either effective on your
last day or when you hit 62 / 65 - depending on your particular plan.
Some newer plans are portability which may have a different set of
rules. You will need to contact your ex-employer to confirm how your
pension pan applies to you.

> I know 401K does penalize you for early withdrawal.

Not necessarily. A 401K can be rolled over onto an IRA and there are
some exceptions for early IRA withdrawals without penalties (72T
exceptions), but taxes will be due.

> Is it the same rule for company pension plan as well?

Pension payouts prior to being 55/ 62 / 65 (depending on your plan)
have no penalties, but once you leave the company, you will likely not
be able to receive any pension payout until you reach a specified age
(as defined by your employer's plan), with the exception of some of the
newer, portable plans. It's unlikely they will offer a full payout
after you leave the company.

>
> Also, is it possible to transfer the pension plan money into some
> investment account (stocks etc)?

Some plans allow for a full payout which can be transferred into an IRA,
but typically that payout is an option available only on the day you leave.

> Is it good to leave it with the same company that is managing the fund
> or move it to my new company's 401K plan?

That depends primarily on the old vs. new investment options.

>
> Thank you in advance for any advice/pointers and help.

Best advise is to confirm any suggestions you receive with your
ex-employer as there are very significant differences between pension
plans.

>
> NJ

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 5:57 am
From: rick++

> Some plans allow for a full payout which can be transferred into an IRA,
> but typically that payout is an option available only on the day you leave.

I have a small one that allows me to do this a any time.
Then you could annuitize the pension and take out some without
penalty.

The large issue is the lump sum may be very small - on the order of
$10K
for eight years of service.
At age 48 is only 1/3rd what it needs to be at age 65 under average
pension
plan deflators.
The lump sum tends to grow as square of the years of service. For an
employee in their 20s it may just be a couple hundred dollars a year,
but by the time they are in their 60s its growing tens of thousands
per year.
Thats why companies dislike these and are dumping them as fast as
possible.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 6:37 am
From: "Chloe"

"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-7821E7.19471830072007@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <npgsa39uk9k4lem04ic41l3k5fblbepi4j@4ax.com>,
> Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions for relatively inexpensive
>> food purchases in the San Diego area.
>> Wholesale is of interest, especially miniature
>> frozen pizzas. I have been paying 50 cents
>> each in packs of 24, but my supplier quit providing
>> them.
>
> Why not make your own? My sister used to manage a restaurant where they
> served pita pizzas. It was just a pita bread topped with pizza sauce,
> cheese, and optional mushrooms, pepperoni, and green peppers. The raw
> ingredients are inexpensive and assembly is easy. Just throw a pita
> bread on a griddle or in an oven, top with the cheese and sauce, and
> heat briefly until the cheese melts. The ingredients cost a few cents so
> its hard to go wrong.

Dei Fratelli sells a pizza sauce in a can designed for storing in the fridge
after you open it--and it stays good for several weeks. I think it makes a
great tasting pizza-like snack spread on a toasted English muffin, topped
with a few slices of pepperoni and a handful of grated mozzarella, and run
under the broiler for a couple minutes.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 7:28 am
From: me@privacy.net

"www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> wrote:

>Why not buy a scanner on sale and do it yourself?

No computer at home to hook scanner up to

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:03 am
From: "godzilla100@gmail.com"

Check out any of the following:

www.godzillachai.blogspot.com
www.patientking.blogspot.com
www.jazmanian.blogspot.com

Pls support us by viewing the ads.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:10 am
From: "Daniel T."

Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net>
>
> > As for the OPs "book" every state handles support differently, so unless
> > the book is for a specific state, or *very* large, I doubt it is all
> > that useful.
> >
> > In Florida for example there is a simple chart in the law showing how
> > much child support will be. There is no arguing about it in court.
>
> Rather naive. If there are lawyers involved, then there is no
> shortage of arguing about it in court. For example, if you can't
> dispute the rate, then you dispute what is eligible income to apply it
> to. BTDT.

You are correct, of course. But my first comment, I think, is correct.
One book can't possibly cover the laws in every state unless it is a
very big book.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Backhoe or dozer rental
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/62c19fdb9643f800?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 31 2007 9:26 am
From: Dennis

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:45:31 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>dfr wrote:
>> I used a road grader, literally, when doing the dirt initially.
>>
>> I was a bit sceptical when the operation that provided it
>> said it was the right tool for the job, but they were right.
>
>A friend in Arkansas bought a used one, graded his roads, and sold it for
>what he paid for it.

I'm not surprised -- excavation equipment seems to not depreciate very
fast. It is not uncommon to see scruffy old bulldozers manufactured
in the 1940s and 50s for sale for significantly more than they
originally sold new. And I'm talking about well-used working
machines, not collector's items.

Of course, inflation accounts for much of that, but it still can be a
shock to see what they are going for.

Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

14 new messages in 7 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ?? Why
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/51f43ffffb99ddf7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 6:23 pm
From: Derald

Rick <rickajho@rcn.com> wrote:

>Since your question is rhetorical to a ridiculous degree, would you care
>to explain if you are:
Nah. You appear to be too stupid for any further attempts at communication.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 6:56 pm
From: Derald

"ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> wrote:

>which brings us back to the original ?, WHY?<g> Stupidity?
LOL! It gets MY vote! I've fiddled around on eBay since '99 (I
think) and follow it pretty closely. I don't know that overbidding on
retail items is "routine" but plenty of folks, whether buying new or
used, seem to forget about delivery charges.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 7:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote
> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> I've been pondering this recently. I'm just wondering...
>>> let's say you inherited an acre of land, free and clear.
>>> Presuming it already has plumbing/sewer/electrical coming
>>> to it...how long it might take to build a house out of just
>>> craiglist 'free" items. I often seen onstruction/remodel
>>> leftovers. I just wish I had a free acre of land to test my idea.

>> Years ago I used to see articles on this kind of project in the
>> alternative magazines. As I remember the typical story, it usually
>> took several years of serious scrounging to accumulate enough bits
>> and pieces, but now and then the homebuilder would start with out
>> with a place to sleep on the land, like a (travel-) trailer or a
>> shed, stay
>> on the land and build his dwelling while foraging for the necessary
>> pieces.
>> otoh, we have an acquaintance who has been accumulating
>> miscellaneous building parts for 28 years. He has a nice big semi-
>> rural lot, maybe 2 acres, that used to be neatly landscaped but now
>> has 3 storage buildings on it filled with used plywood, windows,
>> balusters, staircases, doors, piles of plumbing pipe, piles of
>> plumbing fixtures, and anything else he could get free or cheap.
>> There are squirrels, mice, rats, and probably snakes in it because
>> nobody has moved the stuff for decades. He's going to build another
>> house "some day".

> Ugh...don't want to do that. But I do think having the
> trailer to live in while the house is being built would work.

Yeah, plenty build houses like that.

> To be efficient I'd think only collecting the stuff you'll use in the next week would work.

Cant see that working. I would be a lot better to keep what you come
across and use it when its time to do that part of the house etc.

> For example the starting with the foundation (forget about cement slab...
> odds are you wouldn't get enough "leftover" to pour it) and framing first.

Sure, but you're unlikely to get enough concrete for the foundations free either.

No reason why you have to have any foundations tho, plenty of
houses are built without them, essentially with bricks on the ground.
Those are fine free, doesnt matter that they dont match etc.

> come to think of it Kathy Bates had a movie that was similar to this
> except she just refurbed what seemed to be a barn/shack into a house.

Yeah, plenty have done houses that way. Mate of mine started with
an old house, got another one for free, basically combined the two.

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 7:08 pm
From: "dfr"

Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
> "dfr" <dfr@dfr.com> wrote in message
> news:46ae67f1$0$31407$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>> dfr wrote:
>>>>> In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) ,
>>>> That claim is WAY out.
>>> I was wrong - that should have read 50-60% of Federal income tax
>>> receipts (not the entire budget which includes social Security,
>>> medicare and other sources of Federal revenue)
>>
>> Its still WAY out even on that basis.
>>
>>> Thanks for questioning it.
>>
>>> http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>
>> Thats nothing like an unbiased source.

> A simple-minded nonviolence group founded in 1923. Of course it's a good thing they weren't
> influential enough to adversely impact that unpleasant fighting stuff that occurred in the 40's.
> Otherwise we would be living in a much different world today,

Yeah, tho america could have gotten away with just telling
the japs that if they wanted their SE asian and pacific
possessions that bad, they could have them etc.

> and we'd have a lot more to complain about than just income tax.

Thats arguable. Certainly american jews would have seen many
more of their relatives in europe killed off, and wouldnt have
been welcome to visit europe etc, but I expect the krauts
would have been quite happy to deal commercially when
the US wasnt involved in supporting england and russia etc.

I think its unlikely they would have been stupid enough to try invading north america
once they had conquered europe, they would have had enough trouble with russia etc.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 7:15 pm
From: "dfr"

clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> dfr wrote:
>
>> clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dfr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> dfr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>>>>>> supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>>>>>> able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) ,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That claim is WAY out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I was wrong - that should have read 50-60% of Federal income tax
>>> receipts (not the entire budget which includes social Security,
>>> medicare and other sources of Federal revenue)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Its still WAY out even on that basis.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for questioning it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thats nothing like an unbiased source.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Granted, they have an agenda, but it's hard to dispute their numbers as they are merely taken out
> of the published budget.

They arent tho. The inset pie with 21% is the figures out of the published
budget and they have basically moved from those to the >50% number
themselves, and have basically double counted the debt particularly.

> The big difference, as they clearly point out, is that the government tends to lump SS and other
> sources of tax revenue with the income taxes and then break down the overall expenditures.

That cant get you from 21% to >50%.

> I found it more useful to see where the income taxes are going, exclusive of the FICA, excise and
> other taxes.

Sure, but the inset official figures are a lot closer to reality than theirs.

> It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being overtaxed tend to refer only
> to federal income tax, conveniently
> omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
> overall tax burden.

Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax does.

> But when it comes time to show how the government spends the taxes, they like to group all the
> taxes together.

Yes, because the total govt tax take is mostly spent on everything.

> Of course the biggest sham is the use of excess FICA taxes to pay for non SS uses.

That isnt a sham, its the way all govts do it. SS isnt an accumulation
system, current outgoings are paid for with current incomes.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 7:21 pm
From: "dfr"

Tockk <tock1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote
>> According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit Urban Institute, about 80
>> percent of the federal government's revenue comes from individual
>> income and payroll taxes. Of the other 20 percent, about 2/3 comes
>> from corporate income tax. So, yeah, it *is* like the federal
>> government would suddenly go bankrupt.

> Well, if push comes to shove (I never knew what that phrase meant, but it's fun)

http://www.answers.com/topic/if-push-comes-to-shove

> it shouldn't be too difficult to put up a National Sales Tax.

Sure, virtually all the other modern first world countrys have one or a GST/VAT.

> And for stuff that rich folks buy overseas, they'd have to pay an import tarriff on everything
> they bring into the country.

It aint just rick folks, most modern first world
countrys have the GST/VAT apply to imports.

> As bad as that system would probably work, it can't possibly be any worse than the current Income
> Tax.

The big difference is that those are regressive taxes. An income tax is progressive in a technical
sense.
The amount you pay varys with the income on a sliding scale. Few have a flat rate income tax.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 8:14 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <dFtri.42024$kK1.8883@newsfe14.phx>, clams casino wrote in
part:

>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

This pie chart claims military spending being 51% of federal outlays.

This includes blaming 80% of the interest on the national debt on
military spending. I find that false since past Federal spending
excluding then-past debt interest was much less than 80% for military.
Most of our national debt accrued since Carter took office, even adjusting
for inflation. Exclude debt interest and Social Security from the Carter,
Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II past budgets and a lot less than 80%
of what remains is military. If they said 65% I would believe them.

This claims $9 billion of NASA spending for military purposes.

I found the 2007 NASA budget request, at:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142459main_FY07_summary.pdf

They made it somewhat confusing especially in terms of lack of a bottom
line that I could find quickly (I wonder even at any speed?) and it
appears to me to total about $18-$19 billion with darn little of it being
military.

(The war resistor page later says half of NASA spending gets classified
as "general government" rather than "military").

This claims $17 billion on Department of Energy spending on nuclear
weapons. This sounds like most of the entire DoE budget to me, and I
suspect DoE mostly does things other than making nuclear weapons or
parts/materials thereof.

This is including Executive Office of President $1 billion, and I wonder
how much of that is actually military - I suspect none or close to none.

- Don Klipstyein (don@misty.com)

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 11:42 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <jKtri.42026$kK1.33223@newsfe14.phx>, clams casino wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>>In article <evlri.18311$GO6.5575@newsfe21.lga>, clams casino wrote:
<with editing for space>
>>>Guess George would have to stop his war in Iraq (about 50-60% of Federal
>>>income goes to military / national security),
>>
>> How do you get that figure?
>
>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

You posted this article at a time late enough for me to not see this
before I responded via followupping-with-editing someone else countering
your point (and my then-largely-edited-out stepping stone was posted by a
famous sub-troll that I think deservedly nobody wants to get caught
agreeing with).

This war resister pie chart claims for example $9 billion NASA budget
for military, and I previously posted a link to NASA's 2007 budget request
that I see as confusingly avoiding a big bottom line and more-discerningly
not requesting anywhere near $9 billion for military purposes.

This pie chart also comes with a claim of blaming 80% of interest
payments on national debt on past military spending. Since I know
somewhat well what USA Federal budgets looked like in the past 30 years, I
find this a very tall claim begging for good support which I found
lacking. If they said 65% I would be a lot less skeptical of such a
claim.

I mainly vote for Democrats in November elections in even-number years,
and I am attracted to such a cause - although better-attracted to such a
cause if that cause does not resort to claims easy to shoot down!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 7:57 pm
From: "catalpa"

"clams casino" <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote in message
news:CQvri.42329$6K3.15604@newsfe10.phx...
> George Grapman wrote:
>
>> BeaForoni@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone been to UBid.com and seen the watches up for bid? They have
>>> $4,000 watches for around fifty bucks. I am not sure what a Rousseau
>>> Deluxe is, but it has got to be a real deal. I have a friend that buys
>>> them, prints out the manufacturers web page and then sells them in
>>> bars. Says he doubles his money or more.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If is lists at $4,000 and is sold online got $50 it certainly must be
>> "the real deal".
>>
> Do they have any land for sale at these prices?

Of course. Many Superfund sites are available for 100% off of the regular
retail price.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 9:27 pm
From: Rick

clams casino wrote:
>
> George Grapman wrote:
>
> > BeaForoni@msn.com wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone been to UBid.com and seen the watches up for bid? They have
> >> $4,000 watches for around fifty bucks. I am not sure what a Rousseau
> >> Deluxe is, but it has got to be a real deal. I have a friend that buys
> >> them, prints out the manufacturers web page and then sells them in
> >> bars. Says he doubles his money or more.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If is lists at $4,000 and is sold online got $50 it certainly must
> > be "the real deal".
> >
> Do they have any land for sale at these prices?

Yeah, but you have to transport it yourself witin 10 days of purchase.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TracFone 240 min. for $50
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8fbe6b5c2a6cd7b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 9:23 pm
From: Jonathan Grobe

On 2007-07-16, Brontide <ericew@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 11:12 am, A Veteran <geor...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
>> at Target. Now would these "expire" if I delayed 6 months in installing
>> in my "tank"?
>>
Do a Google search for
Tracfone bonus codes

It is easy to get a substantial number of additional
minutes or a lengthened expiration period if you enter
the appropriate code when you are activating a card.

You can cut your cost per minute in half this way.

--
Jonathan Grobe Books
Browse our inventory of thousands of used books at:

http://www.grobebooks.com

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 9:40 pm
From: timeOday

ChairMan wrote:

> and if can't or won't support what you produce, keep it it your damn pants
> or STFU

It's odd that people take that attitude towards men but not women. Oh,
you didn't want that baby after all? Go ahead and kill it. Or not,
your choice. No need to ask the father or anything, it's none of his
business -- except to pay for whatever you decide of course.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2007 9:45 pm
From: The Real Bev

dfr wrote:

> Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote
>> hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote
>
>>> Anyone ever rented and used a backhoe or bulldozer? I have some land
>>> that I need to level and grade, and the price I was quoted was about
>>> three times what I had expected. Looks like I could rent a dozer for
>>> a week and pay only about 1/6th the cost of having the work done.
>
>> I've rented backhoes and Bobcats. Around here they go for $150-250
>> per day (small discount for weekly rental), depending on the actual
>> machine. Delivery is extra. Bulldozer rentals are available, but
>> less common here.
>
>> Have you ever operated this type of equipment? It could take some
>> time to get the hang of it -- it's not as easy as some of the pros
>> make it look (especially grading). I used to do excavation work 30
>> years ago as a summer job during college. It takes me a while to "get
>> back in the saddle" each time I decide to play in the dirt. It is
>> kind of fun, though. Big boys with big toys, and all...
>
> I used a road grader, literally, when doing the dirt initially.
>
> I was a bit sceptical when the operation that provided it
> said it was the right tool for the job, but they were right.

A friend in Arkansas bought a used one, graded his roads, and sold it for
what he paid for it.

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you were trying to be offensive, you would have succeeded if I
hadn't realized you have no idea what you are talking about."
-- FernandoP

==============================================================================
TOPIC:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/?hl=en
==============================================================================

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

14 new messages in 7 topics - digest