http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* ebay buyers protection - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/307561e4220e39f4?hl=en
* The Next Bank Heist: DEBIT CARDS - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/535b1a94bef90ab2?hl=en
* supreme court to determine obama presidential eligibilty - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/546a49e0512f561c?hl=en
* Govt. wimps rush to bailout banks, autos. How about getting rid of up to 20
million illegal alien leeches? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/789b5435a63eb0a9?hl=en
* MAKE $1,000'S WITH THIS METHOD!!! FOR REAL!! WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE!!? -
1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0fc07cdd13984f12?hl=en
* Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than store
brand? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/16514de0eabde21c?hl=en
* Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets - 13 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cb1cc803cf7130ab?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ebay buyers protection
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/307561e4220e39f4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 1:04 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
pls reply to misc.consumers as i'm not getting download for mcfl for some
unkown reason.
has any of you guys ever had to use it? any advice, etc?
tia,
oldbat
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Next Bank Heist: DEBIT CARDS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/535b1a94bef90ab2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 1:13 pm
From: SlightlyHorny
Another bank scandal in its relative infancy ... Can you envision
debit cards with $50,000 limits?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 2:06 pm
From: BigDog1
On Dec 4, 2:13 pm, SlightlyHorny <lilhor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another bank scandal in its relative infancy ... Can you envision
> debit cards with $50,000 limits?
Nah - it'll never happen. A true debit card is good only for the
balance on hand, plus maybe a small overdraft protection plan with
outrageous fees and interest rates. I don't think even Wells Fargo or
Bank of America, both of which seem to specifically target the low
income low FICO score crowd, would ever come up with a 50K debit card
program.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: supreme court to determine obama presidential eligibilty
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/546a49e0512f561c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 1:14 pm
From: JonL
Dennis wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:20:31 -0600, JonL <JonL@Mayday.com> wrote:
>
>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>>> He could still qualify as natural born if Stanley moved back to the US
>>>> for 5 yrs.
>>> Really? What exactly is required to be a "natural born citizen"?
>>
>> Title 8 of the U.S. Code explains what "natural born citizen" means:
>>
>> * Anyone born inside the United States.
>>
>> * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
>> citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of
>> the tribe.
>>
>> * Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are
>> citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
>>
>> * Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen
>> and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a
>> U.S. national.
>>
>> * Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and
>> lived in the U.S. for at least one year.
>>
>> * Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage
>> cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not
>> provided by age 21.
>>
>> * Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien
>> and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in
>> the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service
>> included in this time).
>
> Elsewhere I have read that this requires five years residence in the
> US after reaching age nineteen. This would explain why my brother's
> foreign-born children were not US citizens even though he is -- he had
> not met this requirement. Wasn't Obama's mom also a teenage parent?
> Interesting...
>
Right, she was only 18, missed it by a few months. Dumb laws, but
they're still on the books. He was born a British subject (regardless
of where), then became naturalized in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro. Most
likely is a nat cit of US, now.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 1:25 pm
From: Dennis
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:14:10 -0600, JonL <JonL@Mayday.com> wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:20:31 -0600, JonL <JonL@Mayday.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>>>> He could still qualify as natural born if Stanley moved back to the US
>>>>> for 5 yrs.
>>>> Really? What exactly is required to be a "natural born citizen"?
>>>
>>> Title 8 of the U.S. Code explains what "natural born citizen" means:
>>>
>>> * Anyone born inside the United States.
>>>
>>> * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a
>>> citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of
>>> the tribe.
>>>
>>> * Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are
>>> citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
>>>
>>> * Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen
>>> and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a
>>> U.S. national.
>>>
>>> * Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and
>>> lived in the U.S. for at least one year.
>>>
>>> * Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage
>>> cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not
>>> provided by age 21.
>>>
>>> * Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien
>>> and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in
>>> the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service
>>> included in this time).
>>
>> Elsewhere I have read that this requires five years residence in the
>> US after reaching age nineteen. This would explain why my brother's
>> foreign-born children were not US citizens even though he is -- he had
>> not met this requirement. Wasn't Obama's mom also a teenage parent?
>> Interesting...
>>
> Right, she was only 18, missed it by a few months. Dumb laws, but
>they're still on the books. He was born a British subject (regardless
>of where), then became naturalized in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro. Most
>likely is a nat cit of US, now.
>
I reread the reference and I had scrambled the details. The actual
requirement is five years residence after age fourteen. Same end
result for both my brother and Obama's mom, though: FAIL.
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 4:20 pm
From: "Daniel T."
On Dec 4, 12:48 pm, JonL <J...@Mayday.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
>
> >> When he was in Hawaii not long ago, he could have produced/released the
> >> vault copy of his birth certificate, if one exists....why didn't he??,
>
> > No, he can't. He isn't authorized to do so. Even if he could, who should
> > he release it to? How many certified copies does he need to buy? One for
> > each person who didn't vote for him, or just one for each person who
> > voted for McCain?
>
> Sure he can. It's done routinely, if it's Your certificate. Release it
> to the Supremes before having the opportunity to alter it.
Really? Then do it. Provide us with your actual birth cert. Not some
copy but the one held in the records office of the hospital or county
courthouse where you were born. Give it to all of us, we all want to
examine it personally.
You can't do it.
> > > All we've seen was this Certificate of Live Birth, which only proves
> > > that a live birth occurred....somewhere, not necessarily in Hawaii.
> > > (Israeli experts pronounced it a crude forgery)
>
> > Since when are israeli's experts on Hawaiian birth certificates? When
> > did they examine it? Did they also examine the birth announcement in
> > news paper?
>
> Doesn't take much of an expert to notice they used a 2007 border with a
> 2008 seal and sig-stamp. (they're changed every year for security
> reasons) The bogus copy also has African as race. The legal term for
> blacks on all docs back in 61 was Negro.
All that was explained already. Got anything new?
> Announcements in the paper can be done by anyone. Often 1-2 weeks after
> birth.
So you are seriously claiming that Obama's parents or grand-parents
published an announcement of his birth in Honolulu "one to two weeks
after" the birth (it was actually 9 days after,) just in case the kid
got to run for president one day?
> > > Notice, no hospital in Hawaii is celebrating or putting up a plaque:
> > > "birthplace of President Barack Obama".
>
> > Where was Regan born? What hospital specifically? Any plaque? What about
> > either Bush? What about Clinton and Carter? What about any other
> > president? Why are you making such unreasonable demands?
>
> Never any question about the others. Something fishy about this guy.
Never any question about whether or not they became president? No
hospital has put up a plaque "birthplace of President John Kennedy"
but is that relevant? Of course not.
Your fishing. If some hospital did put up a plaque, you would say
"that proves nothing" but if they don't then you say "that proves he's
not a citizen."
> <snip>
> In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a
> document that will be good for them, they can't wait to give it to you.
> And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they'll be tap
> dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.
> Obama is tap dancing.
Give it to who exactly? You?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:36 pm
From: "Dave"
> > What? This is a real court case that the supremes are going to have to
rule
> > on. I for one am interested in what the supremes have to say on the
> > atter. -Dave
>
> They already dismissed it.
You're confused. It was dismissed (wrongly) by a judge in PA. -Dave
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Govt. wimps rush to bailout banks, autos. How about getting rid of up
to 20 million illegal alien leeches?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/789b5435a63eb0a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 1:28 pm
From: "Doppelgänger"
<wismel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51ggj4prnt30peqnpjf8loi5g1a39etoa7@4ax.com...
>A great economic boom would ensue.
>
> ted
>
> http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World News
Who would build the cars and get loans from Mexico for Bush, then?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 1:42 pm
From: bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)
How about organizing RECALL elections for every pol who
voted for a bail-out ???
You're worried about "Mexicans" ??? THEY ain't the root
of the problem !
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 6:18 pm
From: "Dave"
"Blackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:49384e6b.2754360@news.west.earthlink.net...
>
> How about organizing RECALL elections for every pol who
> voted for a bail-out ???
Interesting idea. Note that both McCain and Obama supported the original
700BN bailout that (failed), but later morphed to 820BN and (passed), but is
wrongly referred to as the 700 Billion dollar bailout...
Anyway, in a recall, we'd have to fire both McCain and Obama, just for
starters... -Dave
>
> You're worried about "Mexicans" ??? THEY ain't the root
> of the problem !
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: MAKE $1,000'S WITH THIS METHOD!!! FOR REAL!! WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE!!
?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0fc07cdd13984f12?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 4:07 pm
From: chico911
THE 6 DOLLAR PAYPAL MONEY MAKING METHOD
As On 20/20 - TURN $6 into a good chunk of change in a short time
Earn money using PAYPAL as seen on Oprah & 20/20
THE PAYPAL 6 DOLLAR MONEY-MAKING METHOD
AS SEEN ON OPRAH EARN HUGE $$$$$$$$
all you need is:
1) An email address
2) A PayPal account
3) $6.00
THIS IS A September 2008 , CURRENT EMAIL LIST, What do you have to
lose being you are only sending 1 dollar to six people. I WAS
SKEPTICAL AT FIRST, but over about a week hundreds starting appearing
in my paypal account! It was like Christmas morning!!!!
INSTRUCTIONS:
STEP 1:
The first thing to do is highlight and SAVE this entire post in word
or notepad on your computer so you can come back to it later. After
that, if you are not already a PayPal user you need to go to
the PayPal website at
https://www.paypal.co...[Image]. and
SIGN UP. If you want to be able to receive credit card payments from
other people then you will need to sign up for a PREMIER or BUSINESS
account (not just a PERSONAL
account). This is highly recommended to allow others easy payment
options. In order to place the initial $6 into your account, you
will have to verify your bank account with PAYPAL (which may take a
few days). PAYPAL is 100% secure and is used by millions of people
worldwide.
STEP 2:
Here is where the action occurs. The first thing to do is to send a
$1.00 payment to each of the 6 email addresses on the current list
from your PayPal account. To do this quickly and successfully,
follow
these simple steps:
1. Login to PayPal and click on the "Send Money" tab near the top of
the screen
2. In the "Recipient's Email" field enter the email address
3. In the "Amount" field enter "1" (This is your $1.00 payment)
4. In the "Category" field select "Service" (Keeping it legal)
5. In the "Subject" field type "Tutoring Help", and in the "NOTE"
field
Enter "Thanks for the help" or even better "Thank you for answering my
(pick a subject ex. Business, financial, etc) question" By doing this,
you are
creating a service and maintaining the legality of the system by
"paying" for the service. In theory you are tutoring others how to
make money online through paypal. It is very important that you follow
those directions since that is what keeps it legal. You probably have
seen this exact method before with others telling you to write "please
put me on your email list" in the note section. I originally used the
"please put me on your email list" and it worked great until paypal
said that is considered a pyramid scheme. They were really nice about
it, telling me that I couldn't do this anymore (They let me keep the
754.34 that I had made over the 3 weeks, I just had to stop). So I now
have been using this NEW method for about 3 months and there have been
no problems. This is providing a helping service to others, which
paypal has verified as legal. I promise you that this works and is
legal, I even called customer service explaining what I was doing
would not get me in trouble. They gave me the thumbs up, saying this
method meet their user policy! Whats the worst that happens, you lose
6 dollars? Unlike most people, I have tried this program and have
figured out what works! The great thing about this email list is that
I have contacted all of them by email. They all are active in this
paypal method, guaranteeing that they will be posting their list with
your email address to hundreds of posts. You have to be careful, since
many email lists are filled with inactive or wrong emails! If you need
help getting started or have any questions feel free to email me at
paypalmoney12@yahoo.com, working together is what will allow us to
make this potential large sum of money.
Remember, all of this is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! If you have any doubts,
please refer to le 18 Sec.1302 & 1241 of the United States Postal
laws.
Now, click on the "Continue" button to complete the payment.
Repeat these steps for each of the 6 email addresses. That's it! By
sending the $1.00 payment to each address, you are implementing the
compounding POWER of the system. You will reap what you sow!
Here is the current e-mail list:
**************************************[Image]***********
The email list:
1) staygolds1986@yahoo.com
2) iamlegend1990@yahoo.com
3) fritts_fred@yahoo.com
4 ) louismarnell@yahoo.com
5.) doctersuess12@yahoo.com
6.) rpwinton@msn.com
**************************************[Image]**********
STEP 2:
Now take the #1 email off of the list that you see above (from your
saved file), move the other addresses up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4,
etc.) and add YOUR email address (the one used for your PayPal
account) as number 6 on the list. This is the only part of the
document that
should be changed. ** Make sure your email address is the one you
have registered with PayPal **
STEP 3:
Post your amended article to at least 200 newsgroups or message
boards.
Keep in mind that there are tens of thousands of groups online! All
you
need is 200, but remember the more you post the more money you make
- as well as everyone else on the list! I've began to see money roll
in
before I even hit 100 posts, but try to hit around 200 to allow
maximum exposure. Use Netscape, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari,
or whatever your internet browser is to search for various news
groups,
log on to any search engine like yahoo.com or google.com and type in
a
subject like 'MILLIONAIRE MESSAGE BOARD', 'MONEY MAKING DISCUSSIONS',
'MONEY MAKING FORUMS', or 'BUSINESS MESSAGE BOARD', PAYPAL 6 DOLLAR,
OPRAH 6 DOLLAR PAYPAL METHOD. You will
find
thousands and thousands of message boards. Click them one by one and
you will find the option to post a new message. Fill in the subject
which will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll through
the
list of postings in a particular group, and post the article with the
NEW list of email addresses included. THAT'S IT!!! All you have to do
is jump to different news groups and post away. After you get the hang
of it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup.
HOW THE MONEY WORKS:
When you post 200 messages in various forums, it is estimated that
at LEAST 15 people will respond and send you a $1.00 ($15.00). Those
15 will Post 200 Posts each and 225 people send you $1.00 ($225.00),
etc. through 6 levels of email addresses. For comprehension
purposes, here is an easy viewing chart:
REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE YOU WILL
MAKE!!
GOOD LUCK!!
Remember, all of this is ABSOLUTELY LEGAL! If you have any doubts,
please refer to le 18 Sec.1302 & 1241 of the United States Postal
laws.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than
store brand?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/16514de0eabde21c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:36 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <gh8v36$obi$2@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, GregS wrote in part:
>In article <91ufj4l4tpeujlsnfdel1bcds4tu0t3uj3@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>>I have used a lot of CFLs (of different brands) and have not had any
>>that take more than a second or two to come on, until recently (these
>>are flood lights).
>
>Mine are also floodlights. In the cold they first turn on with a dark
>purple, Deep Purple ?
CFLs with outer bulbs have a general trend of starting dimmer and taking
longer to warm up than ones with bare tubing. The tubing in ones with
outer bulbs is formulated to work best at a higher temperature.
>Seems like they don't have it down quite right as far as light concentration
>for more of a spot.
The light from the reflector is less concentrated, because the initial
source (spiral of tubing) is larger and less intense than a filament.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:38 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <Xns9B6A64D2A6851VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7>, Bert Hyman wrote:
>In news:jeldj4l4uj8t4ovgi1465dc9sbusm8jfnm@4ax.com Tony
><trusso11783@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So, the problem is easily solved. Buy incandescents
>
>Better move quickly.
>
>The "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" applies performance
>standards to incandescent bulbs which supposedly will effectively ban
>them in a few years.
Far from it:
http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cb1cc803cf7130ab?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:44 pm
From: "Dave"
> Hint: The economy always does better under Democrat stewardship. It is
> Republican policies that seem to lead to economic chaos.
>
> Jeff
OMG, you could not possibly be more wrong. You are exactly 180 degrees
removed from reality. Congratulations. I think? -Dave
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:47 pm
From: "Dave"
> > Dan - I take it you believe our government can more efficiently create
jobs
> > by raising taxes and forcing employers out of the country? Do
tell...-Dave
>
> Funny, I never mentioned either of those options. But look at what
> Bush's tax cuts have wrought.
17% unemployment that is miscounted (ahem) as 7%. You can blame that on
Bush in your own fantasy world. But imagine where we would be without the
tax cuts. It may be hard for a liberal to imagine, but things would be even
worse!!!
>
> Now, about that job creation efficiency of the private market... How's
> that one working out?
>
> Dan
Not very good, since the government has been trying to run all the private
companies, and thus running them all into the ground. -Dave
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:48 pm
From: "Dave"
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh7cbj$9q3$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Dave <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
>
> > While we're all happily employed (yeah right) building roads and
bridges,
> > our tax rates are sky-high, and employers (private employers) are
leaving
> > the country in droves.
>
> Nothing need be so black and white.
Well let's hope not. But nobody with a brain imagines that higher taxes and
unskilled workers building roads and bridges is going to increase
non-government employment. -Dave
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:50 pm
From: "Dave"
"> Dave, do us all a favor and beat the rush to the exits. Send us a post
> card.
>
> Dan
OK, I'll write "how you enjoying your marxist paradise now, morons?"
:) -Dave
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:52 pm
From: "Dave"
>
> The federal government isn't your family. Not even close. Your
> simplistic notions don't model macroeconomics. Things get worse instead
> of better if the federal government shuts down spending in a recession.
>
If you think there is a GOOD way out of this mess without raising taxes, I'm
all ears. -Dave
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:56 pm
From: "Dave"
> > So what's your solution? Raise taxes?
>
> I wouldn't raise taxes right now. We need some deficit spending - on
> useful things. Spending drives job creation, not corporate cash on
> hand.
>
> --Jeff
>
With a budget imbalance of trillions, how do you propose increasing spending
without increasing taxes? Just print more money?
Sheesh, and people accuse me of being stupid. -Dave
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 5:59 pm
From: "Dave"
"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:4WPZk.4616$qp2.4026@newsfe25.iad...
> Dave wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Holy SHIT! You want the 3 or 4 remaining employers in the U.S. to be
more
> >efficient? How do you figure that is going to help?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Any explanation why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nissan etc
> and now Volkswagen built production plants in the US?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to ship those vehicles in from
thousands of miles away? Building the plants here allowed all those foreign
badges to become even more competitive. NOTE though, before you answer...
the wages paid in those foreign owned U.S. auto plants is about half what
similar workers at GM, Chrysler and Ford earn. If the wages were much
higher, those plants would leave the U.S. again. -Dave
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 6:01 pm
From: "Dave"
> >
> Now I'm really confused. You condemn taxes, yet you support Palin
> who's sole means to govern is by taxing oil company profits and
> redistributing the bounty as welfare checks to all AK residents.
>
Yes, you are confused. AK has a unique arrangement with the oil companies.
It started probably before Sarah was even born. But I'd have to
double-check that, to confirm that Sarah wasn't born yet. -Dave
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 6:02 pm
From: "Dave"
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh8me3$t76$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Dave <noway1@noway2.not> wrote:
>
> > Ok, that was a sarcastic exaggeration of course. But what you fail to
> > consider is, while we are raising taxes to improve infrastructure, we
are
> > ALSO giving employers strong incentives to CUT production and/or move
> > production out of the country.
>
> Not if the infrastructure improvemets are done wisely, so that they are
> worth more than what they cost. It's obvious that we shouldn't waste
> money where it will do little good. But you seem to think that congested,
> unusable highways and inadequete ports are irrelevant to a business's
> decision on where to locate.
And you over-estimate the impact of improving them, as far as employment
goes. -Dave
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 6:07 pm
From: "Dave"
> >
> >I would tell him to balance the budget, no matter what it takes. And to
> >decrease taxes by at least 50% per year, over the next few years.
> >
> >Failure to do those two things will prolong the depression. DOING those
two
> >things might shorten it. But failing to do those two things will
definitely
> >prolong the depression.
> >
> >Oh, and before some idiot screams "but it's only a recession", keep in
mind
> >that the actual unemployment rate right now is 16-17%, which is one
STRONG
> >indicator of a depression. So why is the "official" unemployment rate
> >around 7%? Because that figure no longer counts discouraged
workers...but
> >discouraged workers are no less unemployed. In other words, if we were
> >measuring unemployment in the 1970s, the figure would be about 17% right
> >now. But as the formula has been fudged since then, the official figures
> >for unemployment are very misleading. We are in a depression, a bad
> >ne. -Dave
>
> Thank you Hoobert Heever. It worked so well the first time. Cut taxes
> and balance the budget during a Depression? Would you like to tell us
> how that would work?
Well trillions in business bailouts, using money borrowed from China is
definitely a step in the wrong direction.
> The tax base has gone to hell for the near
> future
So let's increase spending and increase taxes. That will be soooooooo
helpful, I'm sure.
> One other comment - your numbers for the "real" unemployed
> might just be on the low side.
>
> WB Yeats%
Ya think? My best guess is close to 25% and rising quickly. But People who
know better than me tag the number at about 17% unemployed in the U.S. right
now. -Dave
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 6:51 pm
From: Jeff
Dave wrote:
>> Hint: The economy always does better under Democrat stewardship. It is
>> Republican policies that seem to lead to economic chaos.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> OMG, you could not possibly be more wrong. You are exactly 180 degrees
> removed from reality. Congratulations. I think? -Dave
See, e.g.,
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/
Jeff
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 7:00 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"
The US Government is solidly in debt. I hope you don't think they have the
funds to bail out depositors. And supposing they do try to bail out
depositors. That just takes more of YOUR money by taxes. I don't trust FDIC
any more than I trust the government to have a "surplus".
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6po7miF92o97U1@mid.individual.net...
wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
> Safe CD's at a safe bank.
Doesnt need to be a safe bank anymore with the FDIC guarantee.
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 4 2008 7:00 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"
Reduced taxes leaves the consumer with more of his (her) own money.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gh6rbf$oqh$1@reader1.panix.com...
In misc.survivalism phil scott <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
> not a valid comparison.. many things different... totally bogus
> currency now for instance, and vast bloat in
> govt now relative to then.
Given those factors, how will a massive cutback in goverment spending spur
GDP?
==============================================================================
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
