http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* How to get a good Reverse Mortgage? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1a1ccdaf51ae319d?hl=en
* To juice or not. - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
* Value pick for the week: BPL - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/336301697917beb9?hl=en
* Got a great deal on life insurance - feeling great! - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df250846838b8820?hl=en
* STOCK TRADING - ONLINE TRADING - STOCK PICKS & OPTION PICKS AT BUYWALLST INC
- 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e027bd31dd3b3765?hl=en
* Vinegar The Uses, Making & History - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/918781f5cc3775d0?hl=en
* There's No Mystery to Frugality - Hillbilly Housewife Has the Following to
Prove It (PRWeb via Yahoo! News) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b530b07082e33d7f?hl=en
* Oil for plastic laptop hinges - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c2280d0f17bcf6c4?hl=en
* Inflate yo tires? the Pledge - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3091ed9d02910976?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to get a good Reverse Mortgage?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1a1ccdaf51ae319d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 12 2008 9:23 pm
From: A VFW
In article <xiYnk.11840$Bt6.5480@newsfe04.iad>,
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> A VFW wrote:
>
> >why do they charge so much to set up what is basically a lien on your
> >property?
> >
> >
>
> risk that some might live longer than expected / risk that values may
> actually ........ drop
Well, I proposed to an possible investor, a closed term of 12 yrs.
and a very modest loan of $120 K plus interest . 1/3 acre in California.
I'm 65 with Diabetes. May live to 83, like my father but the loan gets
repaid in 12 yrs. or sooner. good deal for someone. and I only need
one.
--
If guns are out-lawed. Only the Out-laws & politicians will have guns.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: To juice or not.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 2:57 am
From: "Mike"
"Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> cybercat wrote:
>
>>
>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>> >>
>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>> >>
>> >>your pal,
>> >>blake
>> >
>> >
>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>
>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
> when
>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>
>
> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years? Be
> *specific*...
Thats amazing, just fucking amazing
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 8:45 am
From: blake murphy
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:
> "Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
> message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>> cybercat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
>>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>>> >>
>>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>>> >>
>>> >>your pal,
>>> >>blake
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>>
>>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
>> when
>>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>>
>>
>> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years? Be
>> *specific*...
>
> Thats amazing, just fucking amazing
>
he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.
your pal,
blake
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:28 am
From: "cybercat"
"blake murphy" <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yh5bunfx4akz$.1ibveyexclizi.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
>> message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> cybercat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
>>>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>>>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>your pal,
>>>> >>blake
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
>>> when
>>>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>>>
>>>
>>> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years?
>>> Be
>>> *specific*...
>>
>> Thats amazing, just fucking amazing
>>
>
> he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.
>
And he's amazing like a train wreck.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 12:40 pm
From: "Gregory Morrow"
blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:
>
> > "Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
> > message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >>
> >> cybercat wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
> >>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
> >>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>your pal,
> >>> >>blake
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
> >>>
> >>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in
than
> >> when
> >>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
> >>
> >>
> >> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years?
Be
> >> *specific*...
> >
> > Thats amazing, just fucking amazing
> >
>
> he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.
Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face,
blake... :-)
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm
Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2001
Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services
Clinton's Economic Legacy
by Mark Weisbrot
"America' 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, is likely to be
remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American
history, which coincided with his two terms.
A fair assessment of his legacy should therefore begin by asking what, if
anything, the President had to do with the economic growth of the last nine
and a half years. The answer is: well, nothing really.
It is often maintained, by people who have not looked at the economics, that
balancing the federal budget and moving it to surplus were responsible for
the economic boom that followed.
But there is no foundation for this claim. The underlying theory is that
these budget changes lead to lower long-term interest rates, because the
government is borrowing less. The lower interest rates then stimulate more
investment and therefore growth.
Even if one accepts the theory-- which is quite a stretch-- the facts don't
fit the case. This was not an investment-led upswing. And the effects of the
post- 1992 budget changes on interest rates are much too small to have had
any noticeable positive impact on growth, according to any standard model
used by economists.
How then to explain the boom? While any business cycle expansion has
multiple causes, two stand out here. The first, and most important, was a
change in policy at the Federal Reserve about five and a half years ago. The
Fed, which had previously operated under the theory that six percent
unemployment was the best that the economy could do without accelerating
inflation, abandoned that view. Unemployment was allowed to fall to its
current 4 percent, and growth continued beyond the point at which the Fed,
in the past, would have pulled the plug.
The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock
holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend
freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth
that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy--
much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by
the federal government.
Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he
necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy
shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic
policy in the last 20 years.
The economic policies for which the President can honestly claim
responsibility-- e.g., NAFTA, the creation and expansion of the World Trade
Organization-- served primarily to prevent the majority of Americans from
sharing in the gains from economic growth. And then there was welfare
reform, which threw millions of poor single mothers at the mercy of one of
the lowest-wage labor markets in the industrialized world.
In short, Clinton's policies continued the upward redistribution of income
and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the
Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its
pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years
ago.
Clinton's foreign economic policy was similar, although more devastating.
His administration, together with its allies at the IMF and the World Bank,
presided over the destruction of the Russian economy, helped to cause and
worsen the Asian economic crisis, and squeezed billions in debt service from
the poorest countries in Africa. Not to mention racking up a record,
economically unsustainable trade deficit for the United States.
Clinton's legacy is by no means an academic question. If the economy fares
badly over the next few years, the Clinton era will look quite good by
comparison. The "New Democrat" strategy of abandoning core constituencies--
especially working Americans-- in favor of big business and the rich will be
judged an economic and political success.
In reality it was neither: Clinton's fight for NAFTA cost his party the
House in 1994, and the New Democrats' long-term strategy to win back the
South could hardly have failed more miserably: Gore did not carry a single
Southern state, not even his home state of Tennessee. So long as Democrats
continue to offer the average American nothing to improve his or her
economic situation, many voters-- and not only in the South-- will continue
to vote against them on the basis of issues that are irrelevant to their
economic well- being.
George W. Bush may well hand the White House back to the Democrats in 2004,
if his extremist cabinet nominations are any indication of his political
judgment. But if Bush's successor is to do any good for America or the
world, we will first need an honest evaluation of the Clinton years..."
Mark Weisbrot is Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
in Washington and Co- author, With Dean Baker, of "Social Security: the
Phony Crisis" (University of Chicago, 2000)
</>
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 1:32 pm
From: clams_casino
Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>
>
>Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face,
>blake... :-)
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm
>
>
>
>
What you and the author of this article don't seemed to understand is
that presidents may do little directly, but they set the tone for the
country through their actions. The economy is a direct reflection of
such perceptions. Investors invest, people spend and business expands
based on future expectations. With GW, the masses flocked to bonds &
CDs, fearful of his leadership . The Fed tried to bail him out though
historically low interest rates, but neither investors nor business took
the bait. That cheap money simply went into the housing bubble - not
into investment / business expansion, as intended.
Under Clinton, most thought the party would never end and spent /
invested accordingly with business expanding on most all fronts. Jobs
were plentiful, wages climbed and tax receipts grew accordingly.,
Under GW, it's been doom and gloom from the day he won the election..
Investment slowed, spending slowed, sentiment soured and business
expansion came to a halt / reversing direction. A recession soon
developed. He has done little to change any of those negative
perceptions, thus the poor economy has lingered on over the past seven
years. The mid term stock market gains were primarily a rebound from
being oversold after 9/11. It's gone essentially nowhere over the
past eight years with an incredible increase in debt and a greatly
deteriorated value to our dollar.
Reagan was good at that - motivating people into believing times were
good & that they would get better. He basically talked the economy
around. Clinton was able to further that perception after the economy
nearly fell apart under Bush Sr. Ford tried to talk the US out of its
problems in the 70's (Whip Inflation Now), but he was not dynamic enough
to carry it off.
The major difference between McBush & Obama is that Obama is firing up
people, building hope & expectations. McBush comes across as just a
tired old guy who intends to continue down the same old tired path set
by GW - more doom and gloom.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 2:42 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
> Gregory Morrow wrote
>> Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face, blake... :-)
>> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm
> What you and the author of this article don't seemed to understand is that presidents may do little directly, but they
> set the tone for the country through their actions.
No they dont. Thats just the line of bullshit their sales fools claim and you are stupid enough to buy that.
The only real effect any Prez has is with stuff like the invasion of Iraq and
even with that, there is just the tiny matter that Congress supported that.
> The economy is a direct reflection of such perceptions.
Like hell it is. The .com fiasco had nothing to do with the Prez
and the sub prime fiasco wasnt caused by the Prez either.
Not even indirectly via Prez policy in either case.
> Investors invest, people spend and business expands based on future expectations.
Yes, but thats got nothing to do with who is the current Prez.
> With GW, the masses flocked to bonds & CDs, fearful of his leadership .
Pig ignorant lie.
> The Fed tried to bail him out though historically low interest rates,
Pig ignorant lie.
> but neither investors nor business took the bait.
Have fun explaining the real estate boom.
> That cheap money simply went into the housing bubble
Yep, and that was nothing to do with bailing out any Prez.
> - not into investment / business expansion, as intended.
That is investment / business expansion, fool.
> Under Clinton, most thought the party would never end and spent / invested accordingly with business expanding on most
> all fronts.
Nothing to do with Slick, everything to do with the usual herd mentality stuff.
> Jobs were plentiful, wages climbed and tax receipts grew accordingly.,
Nothing to do with Slick.
> Under GW, it's been doom and gloom from the day he won the election..
Bare faced pig ignorant lie. The .com boom went bust before the shrub ever showed up.
> Investment slowed, spending slowed, sentiment soured and business expansion came to a halt / reversing direction.
Nothing to do with the shrub, everything to do with the .com fiasco going bang.
> A recession soon developed.
Nothing to do with the shrub, everything to do with the .com fiasco going bang.
And that happened before the shrub showed up too.
> He has done little to change any of those negative perceptions, thus the poor economy has lingered on over the past
> seven years.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
> The mid term stock market gains were primarily a rebound from being oversold after 9/11.
And 9/11 had nothing to do with the shrub anyway.
> It's gone essentially nowhere over the past eight years
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
> with an incredible increase in debt
Due to the very low interest rates, stupid.
> and a greatly deteriorated value to our dollar.
Thats only happened very dramatically relatively recently.
> Reagan was good at that - motivating people into believing times were good & that they would get better.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
> He basically talked the economy around.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
> Clinton was able to further that perception after the economy nearly fell apart under Bush Sr.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
> Ford tried to talk the US out of its problems in the 70's (Whip Inflation Now), but he was not dynamic enough to carry
> it off.
No prez ever can.
> The major difference between McBush & Obama is that Obama is firing up people, building hope & expectations.
Only the fools.
> McBush comes across as just a tired old guy who intends to continue down the same old tired path set by GW - more
> doom and gloom.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Value pick for the week: BPL
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/336301697917beb9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 3:35 am
From: clams_casino
George Grapman wrote:
> OhioGuy wrote:
>
>>> I am not sure who is lower on the food chain,stock touts or
>>> sports touts.
>>
>>
>> You forgot the people who argue about which comic book character
>> would win a fight, or people who argue over whether the Millennium
>> Falcon or Enterprise would win a space battle!
>>
> But those people are not trying to extract money from others.
> Speaking of sports/financial touts they tend to get shy when asked
> why they are sharing their knowledge instead of buying stocks or
> betting on games.
ATVI
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 7:46 am
From: "OhioGuy"
>> Speaking of sports/financial touts they tend to get >> shy when asked
>> why they are sharing their >>knowledge instead of buying stocks or
>> betting on >>games.
Hmm. I think the big problem is that most folks who tout things on here
are looking for a quick buck. Most of the stocks I see touted are penny
stocks in little known companies. Many of these companies don't have much
of a physical presence, either, or if they do, it is a small footprint.
Often they are mostly an idea, which, if everything else falls into place
just right, might succeed. In other words, a house of cards, and easily
manipulated by rumormongering.
I'll admit that with BPL, I bought shares myself, to the tune of $30,000.
However, I did a lot of research on it first, and only bought it when the
market overreacted to the dropping price of oil.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 8:11 am
From: George Grapman
There used to be a scam on Wall Street that worked like this:
Two people walk into a crowded bar near the stock exchange. One
acts drunk and very loudly tell the companion is"Put me down for another
thousand shared of ________. They have a new product that will make the
stock sky rocket". The companion admonishes him to stop drinking and
shut up because he does not want people to know.
The new version involves getting on newsgroups or sending email that
makes it appear that it was misdirected insider information.
They are all the same pump and dump schemes.
Sports touts have their own scams. The advertise "free picks" and
claim a 70 percent winning record (begging the question of why they are
not living off of their picks. If you bite they try to sell you a
package but also do this:
500 callers-250 get one side,250 the other.
The next time 125 get each side.
The third time 62 get one side,63 the other.
Then 32 or 33 people are told "hey, three in row proves we are great.
Which credit card t=do you want to use?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 11:18 am
From: "Rod Speed"
OhioGuy <none@none.net> wrote:
>>> Speaking of sports/financial touts they tend to get >> shy when
>>> asked why they are sharing their >>knowledge instead of buying
>>> stocks or betting on >>games.
>
> Hmm. I think the big problem is that most folks who tout things on
> here are looking for a quick buck. Most of the stocks I see touted
> are penny stocks in little known companies. Many of these companies
> don't have much of a physical presence, either, or if they do, it is
> a small footprint. Often they are mostly an idea, which, if
> everything else falls into place just right, might succeed. In other
> words, a house of cards, and easily manipulated by rumormongering.
> I'll admit that with BPL, I bought shares myself, to the tune of $30,000.
Its mad to be that undiverse. In spades in the current market.
> However, I did a lot of research on it first, and only bought it when the market overreacted to the dropping price of
> oil.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Got a great deal on life insurance - feeling great!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df250846838b8820?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 7:18 am
From: "OhioGuy"
We found out recently we have a third child on the way, so I thought it
would be a good time to increase our life insurance by 50%, just as we're
increasing our child count by the same percentage.
I hunted around and found that insurance rates have become a lot more
competitive since we got our policies 4 years ago. I decided to simply
contact our current company, Ohio National Life, and ask them if we could
just increase by 50%. It wasn't that simple - we had to let our policies
lapse and then take out new policies. (a little bit worrying)
But it was worth it! Now we are paying $9 less a year for both of our
policies, and we also have 50% more - a total of $450,000 rather than the
$300,000 we had before. Everything else is the same.
Of course, this is something I hope we won't actually have to use, but it
does give me peace of mind with the kids.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 11:16 am
From: "Rod Speed"
OhioGuy <none@none.net> wrote
> We found out recently we have a third child on the way, so I thought
> it would be a good time to increase our life insurance by 50%, just
> as we're increasing our child count by the same percentage.
Your other insurances should cover the very unlikely event that kills you both.
> I hunted around and found that insurance rates have become a lot more competitive since we got our policies 4 years
> ago. I decided to
> simply contact our current company, Ohio National Life, and ask them
> if we could just increase by 50%. It wasn't that simple - we had to let our policies lapse and then take out new
> policies. (a little bit worrying)
You can do it the other way if you're that neurotic,
take out the new one and then let the first one lapse.
> But it was worth it! Now we are paying $9 less a year for both of
> our policies, and we also have 50% more - a total of $450,000 rather
> than the $300,000 we had before. Everything else is the same.
> Of course, this is something I hope we won't actually have to use, but it does give me peace of mind with the kids.
Nope, someone will have to look after them if you both end up dead.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 12:53 pm
From: Al Bundy
OhioGuy wrote:
> We found out recently we have a third child on the way, so I thought it
> would be a good time to increase our life insurance by 50%, just as we're
> increasing our child count by the same percentage.
>
> I hunted around and found that insurance rates have become a lot more
> competitive since we got our policies 4 years ago. I decided to simply
> contact our current company, Ohio National Life, and ask them if we could
> just increase by 50%. It wasn't that simple - we had to let our policies
> lapse and then take out new policies. (a little bit worrying)
>
> But it was worth it! Now we are paying $9 less a year for both of our
> policies, and we also have 50% more - a total of $450,000 rather than the
> $300,000 we had before. Everything else is the same.
>
> Of course, this is something I hope we won't actually have to use, but it
> does give me peace of mind with the kids.
A total of $450K split between two people is not much with three kids.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 3:58 pm
From: Marsha
Al Bundy wrote:
>
> OhioGuy wrote:
>
>>We found out recently we have a third child on the way, so I thought it
>>would be a good time to increase our life insurance by 50%, just as we're
>>increasing our child count by the same percentage.
>>
>> But it was worth it! Now we are paying $9 less a year for both of our
>>policies, and we also have 50% more - a total of $450,000 rather than the
>>$300,000 we had before. Everything else is the same.
>>
>
>
> A total of $450K split between two people is not much with three kids.
It's enough to get the crumb grabbers through doctor and lawyer school,
so they can support the surviving parent, or not.
Marsha/Ohio
==============================================================================
TOPIC: STOCK TRADING - ONLINE TRADING - STOCK PICKS & OPTION PICKS AT
BUYWALLST INC
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e027bd31dd3b3765?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:06 am
From: adz2001@gmail.com
At BuyWallSt.com we make stock and option picks which will make you
the most money in a shortest amount of time possible. We primarily
specialize in pre-earnings picks for stocks and options utilizing safe
hedging strategies which always protect our gains. We have been
trading using pre-earnings strategies for the past 7 years. We make up
to 300-600% on our option picks when getting in prior to company
earnings release date. We pick the most volatile stocks on the market
so the returns are always guaranteed when applying hedging strategies.
Of course, if you decide to be on a safe side you can trade the stock
for the option that we are playing on and still earn 15-25% in a day
depending on the volatility of the market.
Why do we focus on stocks and options that will rise in a few days
rather then few months or even years? Because we feel that over the
long run if you follow our stock and option picks you will make much
more than holding on to stocks for months or years. Remember, there is
always a time factor involved with every investment you make. Would
you prefer a 100% gain in a few days or few years? The few days shall
always be preferred given the fact that time is a factor in stock
investing. There is always a chance that we may lose money but we can
also say that we always make more then we lose in the long run.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:36 am
From: George Grapman
Must be legit. Posting from gmail and the contact information on the
site is a form that you fill out and send to them.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:43 am
From: clams_casino
adz2001@gmail.com wrote:
>At BuyWallSpam.com we make stock and option picks
>
If you are so legit, why are you posting spam via gmail?
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:53 am
From: George Grapman
> adz2001@gmail.com wrote:
>
At BuyWallSpam.com we make stock and option picks
Investment advisers and brokers are required to register with the
SEC and give that information when requested. Please post that information
>
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:59 am
From: clams_casino
George Grapman wrote:
> Must be legit. Posting from gmail and the contact information on
> the site is a form that you fill out and send to them.
beat me to it.........-
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 10:02 am
From: George Grapman
clams_casino wrote:
> George Grapman wrote:
>
>> Must be legit. Posting from gmail and the contact information on
>> the site is a form that you fill out and send to them.
>
>
> beat me to it.........-
I just sent a message asking for their SEC registration
details,something the must provide on demand. I am sure it is sitting in
my in box.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vinegar The Uses, Making & History
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/918781f5cc3775d0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:06 am
From: berny
Steps for Making Cider Vinegar, History of Vinegar, Benefits of Cider
Vinegar and much more at http://www.harvestfields.ca/CookBooks/Vin/vinegar.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There's No Mystery to Frugality - Hillbilly Housewife Has the Following
to Prove It (PRWeb via Yahoo! News)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b530b07082e33d7f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 4:08 am
From: admin@ng2000.com
http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=frugal-living
08/12/2008: Tips and Resources for frugal living are in big demand as consumers struggle with rising food and fuel costs. There is one authority on the web that has a following of thousands. Her popularity is based on a tried and true formula founded on common sense and American ingenuity. She's the Hillbilly Housewife.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Oil for plastic laptop hinges
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c2280d0f17bcf6c4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 3:26 pm
From: Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Dave <davenpat@btopenworld.com>
saying something like:
>>>WD-40?s lubricating ingredients
>>
>>
>> are utter shite.
>
>That's because the letters WD mean that it is a water dispersing fluid,
>as a lubricant, it is utter shite that evaporates quite quickly.
Which is exactly my point and one that Kai The Dysfunctional fails to
grasp.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Inflate yo tires? the Pledge
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3091ed9d02910976?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 3:39 pm
From: Jim Prescott
In article <6g3gkfFe34a0U2@mid.individual.net>,
Goomba <Goomba38@comcast.net> wrote:
>Actually, I thought it more stupid the way Obama assumed everyone's were
>improperly filled.
When did he assume that? Most estimates say 20-30% of cars have
underinflated tires.
>It still is small potatoes to the BIGGER problem of oil, don't you think?
Perhaps, but then so is expanding offshore drilling. When Politifact
ran the numbers they came up with annual amounts of 1.2 billion gallons
of gas wasted due to underinflated tires and 1.4 billion gallons
additional gas available should all the off-limits offshore areas be
fully drilled.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/
So getting people to properly inflate their tires would have roughly
the same effect opening up the rest of the offshore areas. Of course
the tire thing is something that would help immediately while drilling
at that rate is probably > 10 years away.
Doing either or both may just be small potatoes but those are the
only kind we've got so we'll need lots of different ones.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group jgp@seas.rochester.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY
==============================================================================
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
