http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Spacing Trips to the Grocery Store? - 12 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9e5316c7228e6cd4?hl=en
* You are not frugal if...... - 7 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3c5261ec65743940?hl=en
* Surviving high heating oil prices - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a184bef53e828bc7?hl=en
* Obama's Plan to Take $800 billion dollars out of American Pockets and send
it to his racial buddies in Africa - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/83cc9f5736b4248b?hl=en
* Dirty, taco-bender picked crops BANNED! Salmonella! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/abba3f29fd8896ff?hl=en
* Key Bank and Free iPod; They are doing it again. - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/49979e6dc6b790c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spacing Trips to the Grocery Store?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9e5316c7228e6cd4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 1:15 pm
From: unow@example.com
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:56:09 +1000, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "FarmI"
<ask@itshall be given> wrote:
> think for me the only problem would be bananas. There is no way to store
>them in any way.
They are good sliced and dehydrated.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 1:24 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> wrote
> ask@itshall (FarmI) wrote
>> I always have UHT milk on hand for when we run out of fresh
>> and I would have no trouble just using that all the time. I also
>> keep UHT cream for the rare times we use it.
> By UHT, do you mean the irradiated stuff you store at room temperature in boxes?
Nope, its not irradiated, its a heat treatment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHT
And yes, its stored at room temp in cardboard boxes lined with plastic.
> We still can't get irradiated food at markets in the USA,
> which would make fresh food storage a lot easier.
> The military uses it a lot, though.
Thats not UHT. UHT means Ultra High Temperature.
Its essentially flash sterilised.
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 2:15 pm
From: unow@example.com
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:12:11 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
me@privacy.net wrote:
>Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>>Almost 30 miles and over an hour to the nearest store for me. I go once a
>>month. I have three freezers and two refrigerators. I've tuned the
>>refrigerators to operate almost exactly at 32 degrees. Produce and bread
>>lasts twice as long at that temperature than the more usual 40-45 deg.
>
>Neon John you have given me and idea!
>
>I have been thinking abt buying a small freezer for
>some time now... this fall probably
>
>I live close to grocery stores but winters in north
>Missouri can get bad so being able to NOT have to run
>to grocery store on miserable cold night is the impetus
>here.
>
>Having said that.... have been thinking abt the small
>freezer idea BUT your post got me to thinking that
>maybe I should get another FRIDGE instead! That way
>I'd have more freezer space as well as refrigerated
>space for keeping things lots longer as you mention
>above!
>
>I could keep the bananas and bread and cookies and all
>kinds of things you normally leave laying out IN the
>extra fridge room..... as well as having TWO
>freezers... one in current fridge and the other freezer
>space in the second fridge.
>
>What you say?
I can and dehydrate stuff then don't have the extra electric bill from freezing
stuff.
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 2:56 pm
From: "Evelyn C. Leeper"
Jonathan Grobe wrote:
> Since I live several miles from the nearest grocery
> store and since gas prices are rapidly increasing, I
> have been thinking I should increase the time between
> trips to the grocery store. The problem is perishables.
> While some can be frozen, others can't.
>
> Any thoughts on the longest interval one should have
> between trips? (For me it looks like milk would be
> the determining factor).
Non-fat dry milk. If you don't like non-fat milk, combine it with
canned evaporated milk.
One advantage of dry milk is that you can mix up only what you need,
instead of having to buy a gallon at a time. (We don't use much, so
Mark mixes about a pint at a time.) You can also add the powder to
soups and such.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Just because everything is different doesn't mean
anything has changed. -Irene Peter
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 2:04 pm
From: Ann
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:56:39 -0700, Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <4879c32c$0$29804$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, ask@itshall (FarmI) says...
>
>> I always have UHT milk on hand for when we run out of fresh and I would
>> have no trouble just using that all the time. I also keep UHT cream for
>> the rare times we use it.
>
> By UHT, do you mean the irradiated stuff you store at room temperature in
> boxes? We still can't get irradiated food at markets in the USA, which
> would make fresh food storage a lot easier. The military uses it a lot,
> though.
Wegmans supermarket chain in the northeast began selling irradiated beef
in 2002. I never bought it, but the last I noticed, it was still in the
meat case.
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 3:04 pm
From: Goomba
Ann wrote:
> Wegmans supermarket chain in the northeast began selling irradiated beef
> in 2002. I never bought it, but the last I noticed, it was still in the
> meat case.
>
The same meat!? WOW, that irradiation IS some preserver, huh? LOL
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 3:41 pm
From: The Real Bev
Ann wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:56:39 -0700, Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
>> By UHT, do you mean the irradiated stuff you store at room temperature in
>> boxes? We still can't get irradiated food at markets in the USA, which
>> would make fresh food storage a lot easier. The military uses it a lot,
>> though.
>
> Wegmans supermarket chain in the northeast began selling irradiated beef
> in 2002. I never bought it, but the last I noticed, it was still in the
> meat case.
Same piece? Awesome!
--
Cheers,
Bev
*********************************************
Not all cultures are equal. If they were, we
would have a lot more cannibal restaurants.
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 4:13 pm
From: Jim
Ann wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
[....]
> >
> > By UHT, do you mean the irradiated stuff
[....]
>
> Wegmans supermarket chain in the northeast began selling irradiated beef
> in 2002. I never bought it, but the last I noticed, it was still in the
> meat case.
since they continue to carry and stock the item that's going to be a
good indicator of how someone is purchasing the stuff.
how's the literacy rate in that area?
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 5:30 pm
From: Ann
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:04:58 -0400, Goomba wrote:
> Ann wrote:
>
>> Wegmans supermarket chain in the northeast began selling irradiated beef
>> in 2002. I never bought it, but the last I noticed, it was still in the
>> meat case.
>>
> The same meat!? WOW, that irradiation IS some preserver, huh? LOL
Yeah, realized when I reread that after posting that someone would
probably say that.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 5:32 pm
From: Ann
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:41:38 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> Ann wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:56:39 -0700, Larry Caldwell wrote:
>>
>>> By UHT, do you mean the irradiated stuff you store at room temperature
>>> in boxes? We still can't get irradiated food at markets in the USA,
>>> which would make fresh food storage a lot easier. The military uses it
>>> a lot, though.
>>
>> Wegmans supermarket chain in the northeast began selling irradiated beef
>> in 2002. I never bought it, but the last I noticed, it was still in the
>> meat case.
>
> Same piece? Awesome!
Actually, more than one. <g>
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 5:40 pm
From: Ann
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:13:49 -0400, Jim wrote:
> Ann wrote:
>
>> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> [....]
>> >
>> > By UHT, do you mean the irradiated stuff
> [....]
>>
>> Wegmans supermarket chain in the northeast began selling irradiated beef
>> in 2002. I never bought it, but the last I noticed, it was still in the
>> meat case.
>
> since they continue to carry and stock the item that's going to be a good
> indicator of how someone is purchasing the stuff.
>
> how's the literacy rate in that area?
Bought it the same city the friend you mentioned is from, Elmira. He would
know better about the literacy rate.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 6:00 pm
From: Ann
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:15:06 -0700, Sheldon wrote:
> On Jul 13, 9:26am, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:59:24 -0400, Neon John wrote:
>> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:09:56 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Grobe
>> > <gr...@netins.net> wrote:
>> <...>
>> > Another avenue that I'm experimenting with is turning powdered milk
>> > back into whole milk by adding butter. I think that it'll be fine
>> > for cooking when I get the amount of butter just right. I haven't
>> > tried it for ice cream yet.
>>
>> If you ever figure that out, please post the "secret". I think there is
>> some off-taste, compared to Jersey milk i/c, particularly vanilla.
>> But ice cream socials switched to evaporated milk in their (cooked
>> egg custard) recipe decades ago. Partly cost and partly availability.
>>
>
> If adding butter along with powdered milk for cooking it will be fine,
> especially for baking... but it's not possible to emulsify powdered milk
> with butter for drinking unless you don't mind the tiny bits of butter.
>
> The proper way to rehydrate powdered milk is to let it sit in the fridge
> for 24 hours before drinking... it's called instant but it's not, it needs
> time to completely hydrate. When done correctly you'd be hard pressed to
> tell the difference from fresh skim milk. Another trick is to add just
> one drop of vanilla extract per quart. Naturally if you leave the
> powdered milk packaging out in plain view everyone will imagine it tastes
> different from fresh, because if the package is on the table and the milk
> served is actually fresh skim no one will believe you... the power of
> suggestion is quite potent.
The only circumstance under which I drink milk is when it's heavily
fortified with chocolate. <g> Which is convenient because that eliminates
the fresh liquid milk hassle.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: You are not frugal if......
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3c5261ec65743940?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 1:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:02:19 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:48:33 -0700, unow@example.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:10:13 -0700, in
>>>> misc.consumers.frugal-living Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:23:41 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if you can tell how much ethanol a particular gas has.
>>>>>> Ethanol has a lower energy content and 10% Ethanol gives about
>>>>>> 3% less mileage.
>>>>> I see about a 5% reduction in mileage on 10% ethanol. 1998 Toyota
>>>>> Corolla, 1.8L, manual transmission, ~80/20 highway/city.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis (evil)
>>>>
>>>> I think everything in some states is 10% ethonol now.
>>>
>>> It was just mandated for my area at the beginning of this year, so I
>>> have pretty good before and after data to compare.
>>
>> The 5% reduction makes sense as the energy content is half. I had
>> heard 3% perhaps because the can run more advanced in some cars.
>>
>> What really is your highway mileage, surely not 80!
>
> I meant my driving mix is roughly 80% highway, 20% city (i.e.,
> stoplights and traffic).
>
> I was averaging about 40mpg overall last year with straight gas. It
> has dropped to about 38mpg since the switch to 10% ethanol. Actually,
> it dropped lower than that at the switchover time last January (to
> 36mpg, about 10% drop), but has improved. I suspect the colder
> weather, snow tires vs. regular tires, etc. played a factor. I
> calculate my mpg the old fashion way, miles on the trip odo divided by
> gallons to fill the tank, and it stays pretty consistent over time.
>
>
>> I might have some money for a replacement car, thinking along the
>> lines of a Honda Civic HX, if I can find one. That gets 40 + on the
>> highway. With that kind of mileage I can drive like it's 2007 all
>> over again!
>
> Why did they quit making models like the HX? Nowadays, they act like
> it's a big deal when a compact 4-banger gets 30mpg.
>
> I bought my first brand-new car in 1980, a Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX.
> It had a 2.0L 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission. It was
> supposed to be a sporty little brother to the 280ZX. I used to
> average 35mpg commuting with it, and once got 38mpg over a couple
> tanks on a longer trip down the freeway (in July with the A/C going).
> OK, it had electronic ignition, fuel injection, etc, but it was almost
> (now) 30-year-old technology! Why can't the manufacturers at least
> match that today?
Basically because of the pollution controls.
>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>
> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
> for the driving public.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 1:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Dennis wrote:
>
>>
>>> I might have some money for a replacement car, thinking along the
>>> lines of a Honda Civic HX, if I can find one. That gets 40 + on the
>>> highway. With that kind of mileage I can drive like it's 2007 all
>>> over again!
>>
>> Why did they quit making models like the HX? Nowadays, they act like
>> it's a big deal when a compact 4-banger gets 30mpg.
>>
>> I bought my first brand-new car in 1980, a Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX.
>> It had a 2.0L 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission. It was
>> supposed to be a sporty little brother to the 280ZX. I used to
>> average 35mpg commuting with it, and once got 38mpg over a couple
>> tanks on a longer trip down the freeway (in July with the A/C going).
>> OK, it had electronic ignition, fuel injection, etc, but it was
>> almost (now) 30-year-old technology! Why can't the manufacturers at
>> least match that today?
>
> They can.
Nope.
> Unfortunately the US manufacturers decided fluffed up trucks with 18 cup holders, 600 HP engines and 195,000lb towing
> capacity were what the average US driver needed to transport themselves and a large coffee.
Doesnt explain why Datsun doesnt get the result they used to get.
> I had a Ford Fiesta that they imported for only a few years and it got
> similar mileage to what you described with the Datsun. They still make
> and sell the Fiesta in Europe and Asia. The new version gets 34 mpg
> city/ 43 highway and 38.9 combined. The turbodiesel version gets 64
> mpg combined.
> If Ford is still in business they won't even be able to offer the
> Fiesta gas version in the US until at least October, 2009 because of all of the reliance they put on selling fluffed
> up trucks here.
Doesnt explain why Datsun doesnt get the result they used to get.
The real reason its got worse is the pollution controls that are now mandated.
>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>
>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
>> for the driving public.
>
> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
> going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
> ideas the politicians ever came up with.
I doubt it. Look at what Brazil is doing sometime.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 2:21 pm
From: unow@example.com
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:24:58 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>
>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
>> for the driving public.
>
>Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
>going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
>ideas the politicians ever came up with.
>
>
>
>>
I don't like bio-desiel because they are cutting down forests to make
bio-deisel.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 3:38 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
unow@example.com wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:24:58 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>>>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>>
>>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
>>> for the driving public.
>>
>> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
>> going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
>> ideas the politicians ever came up with.
> I don't like bio-desiel because they are cutting down forests to make bio-deisel.
No they arent.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 3:56 pm
From: unow@example.com
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:38:30 +1000, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>unow@example.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:24:58 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
>> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>>>>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>>>
>>>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
>>>> for the driving public.
>>>
>>> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
>>> going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
>>> ideas the politicians ever came up with.
>
>> I don't like bio-desiel because they are cutting down forests to make bio-deisel.
>
>No they arent.
>
Yes they are and I have witnessed it.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 4:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
unow@example.com wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:38:30 +1000, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> unow@example.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:24:58 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
>>> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>>>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as
>>>>>> it doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no
>>>>> sense for the driving public.
>>>>
>>>> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the
>>>> SUVs going will definitely go into the history books as one of the
>>>> dumbest ideas the politicians ever came up with.
>>
>>> I don't like bio-desiel because they are cutting down forests to
>>> make bio-deisel.
>>
>> No they arent.
> Yes they are and I have witnessed it.
Fuck all biodiesel comes from freshly cut down forests.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 6:36 pm
From: "Evelyn C. Leeper"
Seerialmom wrote:
> On Jul 11, 10:14 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> Seerialmom wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 8:00 pm, William Souden <sou...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
>>>> better, use a debit card on trips.
>>> Wrong: AAA has partnered with Travelex** to offer Traveler Cheques.
>>> Never has traveling to Europe been easier. American Express Euro and
>>> Pounds Traveler Cheques are accepted in 12 European nations. US
>>> Traveler cheques are also available. Please note a $9.95 handling fee
>>> for US Travelers Cheques purchases
>> I do not think I have purchased travelers checks since I first got a
>> debit card. When traveling I rarely carry more than $40 on me. If I need
>> cash I numerous options:
>>
>> Go to any chain store,buy one item and get cash back.
>> My credit union is linked to network of other credit unions as well as
>> the 7/11 network with no fees for using their ATMs.
>>
> I bought traveler's cheques when I was going on a trip to Hong Kong
> about 8 years ago, but I also used my debit card. I think the
> original point of Traveler's Cheques was that back before debit cards
> were around people wrote personal checks. Outside of your local area
> many businesses wouldn't take a personal check from out of towners,
> Traveler's Cheques were the alternative (plus you didn't have to carry
> a big roll of dough).
Traveler's Cheques are also useful in countries where the ATMs are 1)
iffy because of bad telephone lines (e.g. Turkey), 2) often not in
English (e.g., Japan), or 3) when the ATM system goes down entirely
(which happened to us--and everyone else--in Stockholm one Saturday).
It's worth having a few as a backup to the ATM/credit/debit cards.
By the way, if you use a bank ATM card, find out which banks in your
destination country are partnered with them--you won't have to pay ATM
fees at those.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Just because everything is different doesn't mean
anything has changed. -Irene Peter
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Surviving high heating oil prices
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a184bef53e828bc7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 2:46 pm
From: nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> >If you read back, I said that foild will help by REFLECTING radiated
>> >heat. It doesn't do squat for the 'R' value, however, because that
>> >is a measure of CONDUCTED heat.
>>
>> No. R-values are measured, and they include all forms of heatflow.
>
>Your definition of "R-value" is meaningless. The 'R' varies by
>application, which makes it a meaningless number.
You've made a mistake, Keith. I suggest you admit it and move on.
Nick
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama's Plan to Take $800 billion dollars out of American Pockets and
send it to his racial buddies in Africa
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/83cc9f5736b4248b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 3:51 pm
From: D2Zabcdef@googlemail.com
Unnoticed by most Americans this week, the Obama/Hagel GLOBAL
POVERTY ACT was quickly approved by a senate committee and cleared for
the next step, debate in a democrat-controlled senate.
The GLOBAL POVERTY ACT is unique in its breathtaking scope. It is
not foreign-aid. The Act will require the President and Congress to
set aside .07% of the annual gross national product - our GNP - to be
distributed around the globe to relieve poverty at a cost of about
$800 billion dollars annually to taxpayers. It is Barack Obama's
response to the call of the Bali Global Warming Conference for a
global carbon tax; a blatant redistribution of the planet's wealth to
the "powerless".
Coupled with his riveting stump speeches which generate huge
emotional reactions from his equally huge audiences - speeches which
literally call for a redistribution of wealth right here at home as
well - Barack Obama's sponsorship of the GLOBAL POVERTY ACT gives us a
chilling preview of an Obama presidency.
Just to put that $800 billion into perspective, realize that it's more
than half
of what we spend on entitlements now. What Obama is proposing is an
approximately 65% increase in entitlement spending, except that this
time the entitlements aren't even for Americans.
That is an enormous amount of money that Americans, already heavily
burdened with taxes, can ill-afford to pay. So why should we have to
pay it? Because Obama, the Democrats and their liberal buddies in the
international community have decided that it is what America's tithing
should be in order to achieve the rather vague goal of "fighting
global poverty."
Of course, one would think that before Americans are required to foot
this heavy new entitlements bill Obama and his comrades would have to
prove that any of the money America has spent before on "fighting
poverty" has moved us any closer at all to actually ending poverty,
but that probably makes too much sense.
Maybe, instead of forcing Americans to pay for this foreign aid, Obama
could just set up a new check box on our tax documents letting us
volunteer to send the money if we want to. Because if his idea is a
good one lots and lots of Americans would support it, right?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas_plans_for_global_wealth_redistribution/
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 4:13 pm
From: rastafarians2002@yahoo.com
On Jul 13, 3:51�pm, D2Zabc...@googlemail.com wrote:
> � � Unnoticed by most Americans this week, the Obama/Hagel GLOBAL
> POVERTY ACT was quickly approved by a senate committee and cleared for
> the next step, debate in a democrat-controlled senate.
>
> � � The GLOBAL POVERTY ACT is unique in its breathtaking scope. It is
> not foreign-aid. The Act will require the President and Congress to
> set aside .07% of the annual gross national product - our GNP - to be
> distributed around the globe to relieve poverty at a cost of about
> $800 billion dollars annually to taxpayers. It is Barack Obama's
> response to the call of the Bali Global Warming Conference for a
> global carbon tax; a blatant redistribution of the planet's wealth to
> the "powerless".
>
> � � Coupled with his riveting stump speeches which generate huge
> emotional reactions from his equally huge audiences - speeches which
> literally call for a redistribution of wealth right here at home as
> well - Barack Obama's sponsorship of the GLOBAL POVERTY ACT gives us a
> chilling preview of an Obama presidency.
>
> Just to put that $800 billion into perspective, realize that it's more
> than half
> of what we spend on entitlements now. �What Obama is proposing is an
> approximately 65% increase in entitlement spending, except that this
> time the entitlements aren't even for Americans.
>
> That is an enormous amount of money that Americans, already heavily
> burdened with taxes, can ill-afford to pay. �So why should we have to
> pay it? �Because Obama, the Democrats and their liberal buddies in the
> international community have decided that it is what America's tithing
> should be in order to achieve the rather vague goal of "fighting
> global poverty."
>
> Of course, one would think that before Americans are required to foot
> this heavy new entitlements bill Obama and his comrades would have to
> prove that any of the money America has spent before on "fighting
> poverty" has moved us any closer at all to actually ending poverty,
> but that probably makes too much sense.
>
> Maybe, instead of forcing Americans to pay for this foreign aid, Obama
> could just set up a new check box on our tax documents letting us
> volunteer to send the money if we want to. �Because if his idea is a
> good one lots and lots of Americans would support it, right?
>
> http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas_plans_for_global_wealth_redis...
Thanks. A "Say anything" blog is sure a reliable source. They can't
even get their decimals from the disinformation right (0.07%?).
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dirty, taco-bender picked crops BANNED! Salmonella!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/abba3f29fd8896ff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 4:11 pm
From: Jack
On Jul 12, 4:11 pm, "Kswck" <ks...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Jack" <tinac...@themacisp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:102a4792-34f0-4c53-b94b-249aea51bc37@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 7:20 pm, billimmel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 9:22 pm, "Do the World a favour, kill a leftist"
>
> > <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > See, you FILTHY Mexicans? You have to wash your hands (or at least
> > > use toilet paper) after using that hole in the ground to relieve
> > > yourselves. Did you Americans know that Mexicans often use human
> > > feces to fertilize crops??!
>
> > > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Starting Monday, health inspectors will halt the
> > > shipment of ingredients common to Mexican cuisine from Mexico to the
> > > United States, sources familiar with the salmonella poisoning
> > > investigation said.
> > > Since April, more than 900 people have contracted the same strain of
> > > salmonella, but its source is unclear.
>
> > > Since April, more than 900 people have contracted the same strain of
> > > salmonella, but its source is unclear.
>
> > > The inquiry, which initially focused solely on tomatoes, has expanded
> > > to include cilantro, jalapeño peppers, Serrano peppers, scallions and
> > > bulb onions, said Tommy Thompson, former secretary of the Department
> > > of Health and Human Services, who said he has been informed of the
> > > plan.
>
> > Deport all illegal aliens. Bring back the family farm.
>
> >http://www,numbersusa.com/NumbersUSA
>
> > bill
>
> It would be great if we could return to the family farm but that will
> only come into being if we go into a dictatorship government. AND we
> have the right kind of dictator. The odds are great.
> It will not happen but this country needs to can all politicians and
> put STATESMEN in Washington, but they are a rare creature theses
> days.. You start by NEVER reelecting any office holder, no matter who
> or what they are period. Reelecting has created the mess of politics
> we have now.
>
> Another item which for the good of mankind, in the long run, is forbid
> the hybridizing, cloning or use of hormones in anything in the food
> chain. Today most of your food does not have the flavorful taste that
> in nature it is suppose to have.
> But until the public refuses to buy the crap, the greedy growers and
> distrubutors are going to shove it on the market. MY suggeston is
> refuse to buy it. Let it rot on their shelves. This practice of
> artificial ripening of fruits in order to sell them is for the
> BIRDS. WAKE up CUSTOMER and reclaim your right to good tasteing food.
>
> And for those in the NorthCentral and NorthWest and NorthEast who want
> veggies that don't grow in snow?
I'll disagree with your statement that hybidizing , etc, is necessary
to have the products on the market that are there today. The natural
fruits and vegies still can be grown and can still be just a cheap as
all the other crap. Wake up and . If the only fruits and vegies grown
were the natural ones then thats what you would be buying at the
market today not the crappy stuff the growers are shoving down your
throat.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Key Bank and Free iPod; They are doing it again.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/49979e6dc6b790c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 4:26 pm
From: Gordon
For those of you who were here last year, I related my
experience (good) with Key bank's offer of a free iPod
for opening a new checking account.
Well, I just saw an ad in the paper, and they are doing it
again. Sign up for a new checking account, Use it at least
3 times, get a free iPod 3G nano. This year there is an
option to get an iPod touch.
If you want a free iPod (free is frugal), you should
look into this.
Note: Be sure to read and understand the fine print or
you may end up paying fees, or you won't have the right
transactions to qualify for the iPod.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 13 2008 5:01 pm
From: clams_casino
Gordon wrote:
>For those of you who were here last year, I related my
>experience (good) with Key bank's offer of a free iPod
>for opening a new checking account.
>
>Well, I just saw an ad in the paper, and they are doing it
>again. Sign up for a new checking account, Use it at least
>3 times, get a free iPod 3G nano. This year there is an
>option to get an iPod touch.
>
>If you want a free iPod (free is frugal), you should
>look into this.
>
>Note: Be sure to read and understand the fine print or
>you may end up paying fees, or you won't have the right
>transactions to qualify for the iPod.
>
>
They're an older model - based on 8 track.
==============================================================================
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
