http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* family insurance - does this add up? - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/15f3f7816237a92a?hl=en
* some of holy Quran speech: - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/97b74a8ad1879ab5?hl=en
* Are cyclists and gays freaks of nature? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc5edf273f5bc025?hl=en
* which cell phone/plan for emergency use only? - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d90f7803af185259?hl=en
* $ Spending Welfare Money to Buy Presents $ - 6 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9f2459f898fbe082?hl=en
* Why is Pot so expensive? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8f5f3c5d26c577da?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: family insurance - does this add up?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/15f3f7816237a92a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 23 2011 10:13 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <4ecdaa28$0$24037$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>, Ohioguy <none@none.net>
wrote:
> My wife works as a librarian, and I'm a stay at home Dad who changes
> diapers & does the budgeting.
>
> I've watched with chagrin as our family health costs have ballooned
> over the past 4 years. 5 years ago, we paid something like $1k taken
> off of the paycheck, and probably $500 of $20 copays a year. That's a
> grand total of about $1,500 for our health insurance costs.
25 copays in a year sounds like you are either an abuser or have chronic
problems that any insurance company would want to charge more for
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 10:53 am
From: "Rod Speed"
THE Wise & Wonderful Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <4ecdaa28$0$24037$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,
> Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:
>
>> My wife works as a librarian, and I'm a stay at home Dad who
>> changes diapers & does the budgeting.
>
> Since your wife works as a librarian, she ought to be good at doing
> research. Right?
Wrong. Few librarians can do that sort of research.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 11:22 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Ohioguy wrote:
> My wife works as a librarian, and I'm a stay at home Dad who changes
> diapers & does the budgeting.
> I've watched with chagrin as our family health costs have ballooned
> over the past 4 years. 5 years ago, we paid something like $1k taken
> off of the paycheck, and probably $500 of $20 copays a year. That's a
> grand total of about $1,500 for our health insurance costs.
> My wife's wages have actually FALLEN over the past 5 years, adjusted
> for inflation. She was given a token 1% raise over the past year.
> Meanwhile, groceries have gone up something like 15%.
But grocerys arent the only thing you spend her wage on,
and its not clear how much of that increase is due to the
price of the grocerys and how much is due to you buying
more as the kids get older etc.
> Guess what has happened to our health costs? They switched over to
> a high deductible plan with no copays roughly 3 years ago. A couple
> of days ago they released our projected health care changes.
> Here are our health related costs:
> 2009 $0 deductible ~$600 in copays ~$1k from paycheck = $1,600
> 2010 $2k deductible ~$1,000 from paycheck = $3,000 +87%
> 2011 $3k deductible ~$1,100 from paycheck = $4,100 +36%
> 2012 $4k deductible ~$1,200 from paycheck = $5,200 +27%
> (I should mention that the library covers the first $1k, then our
> deductible kicks in)
> I'm fairly decent at budgeting, buying things at thrift stores & yard sales, etc. to stretch our budget.
What percentage of what you buy comes from those ?
> It is getting tougher and tougher, though. I guess it is mostly because the state of Ohio has continued to cut
> budgets for libraries, and our local library is forced to try to get cheaper insurance, & pass more of the cost on to
> us.
And because your country is too stupid to go for a decent
modern health care funding system like every other modern
first and second world country has now.
> We used to have about $7k a year of money left after paying off all
> of the absolutely necessary bills. The increases have essentially cut
> our "cushion" in half.
> The library gave us a sheet showing that we have about $1,200 a year
> taken out of paychecks to pay for insurance, while the library pays
> about $11k a year for the insurance. I set up an HSA so that we don't
> get hit all at once with a huge out of pocket bill.
> My wife has a medical condition that pretty much guarantees that we will pay out the full deductible every year.
And that may well be why you appear to be paying rather more
than the best price you can find elsewhere for medical insurance.
> I guess my question is this: is the library getting a good deal on
> this insurance, if it is truly paying $11k a year for the family
> insurance? I found a couple of very similar policies online, with
> about a $3,500 deductible, no copay, about $400 a month for a family
> policy. That would cost about $4,800 plus the $3,500 deductible, for
> a total of about $8,300 a year. That is evidently what we could get
> by shopping around for family insurance.
> Right now, according to the library, the total cost they can
> negotiate for hundreds of employees costs $11k from them, $4k
> deductible from us, and $1,200 from our paycheck. That total comes
> out to about $16,200. I think it also covers basic vision and
> dental, too, however. (we pay 20% of the dental costs) So it is sort
> of apples and oranges. I guess I would have to shop around for a
> basic vision/dental plan, then add it to compare.
>
> Off the top of my head, though, it just doesn't seem possible that
> the best deal the library can negotiate is $8k more. Even if I add
> $3k to cover the vision/dental, it seems like it should be about
> $11,300, and not $16,200.
> What do you think, does it add up, or not?
Hard to say unless you can provide the figures for other librarians
who dont have serious ongoing medical problems and unless you
spell out exactly what your wife's medical condition is.
25 medical bills a year is a hell of a lot even for something like diabetes.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 12:34 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <9j7i5hF52eU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> THE Wise & Wonderful Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > In article <4ecdaa28$0$24037$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,
> > Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> My wife works as a librarian, and I'm a stay at home Dad who
> >> changes diapers & does the budgeting.
> >
> > Since your wife works as a librarian, she ought to be good at doing
> > research. Right?
>
> Wrong. Few librarians can do that sort of research.
and your proof of that assertion is...?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: some of holy Quran speech:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/97b74a8ad1879ab5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 5:44 am
From: abd alrahman abd allah
hi,
some of holy Quran speech:
page 4 -part 1 :
21. O ye men ! worship your Lord WHO created you and those before you,
that you may guard against evil.
22. WHO made the earth a bed for you, and the heaven a roof, and
caused water to come down from the clouds and therewith brought forth
fruits for your sustenance; so do not set up equals to ALLAH, while
you know.
23. And if you are in doubt as to what WE have sent down to OUR
servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers
besides ALLAH, if you are truthful.
you can know more about islam .........
for more information about Quran ,Muhammad and Islam ,please visit :
http://sites.google.com/site/islamicsitesaddr/home/eng_version-2
http://islamicreli.blogspot.com/
thank you for your visiting
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are cyclists and gays freaks of nature?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc5edf273f5bc025?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 9:42 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
On Nov 24, 12:13 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:05 pm, Darius Parfus <odewuff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 10:10 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So busy in the old times when the Bible was written, then hectic with
> > > Jesus, and that's it... God went on a long vacation that's still going
> > > on. Actually you may think that the Old Man retired for good.
>
> > > Hey, nothing wrong with that. He worked so hard to make the Universe,
> > > the Earth, the animals, the angels and then Man that he deserves to
> > > rest forever. And Man hasn't been easy. He --and she-- have been a big
> > > headache from day one. And what can you say about Satan? He's been a
> > > troublemaker ever since his fall. We don't know where he is but he
> > > could be hiding anywhere trying to tempt us and make us fall.
>
> > > Things in the Universe are not looking good, but perish the thought
> > > that we call him back into action. Let him rest.
>
> > > (I'm sending a copy to Australia because we need to be anchored in
> > > reality. God made Australia for a reason, right? Or is it that
> > > Australia proves evolution? Whatever reason Australian Wisdom is the
> > > best)
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> > My opinion God is a perversion of masculinity meant to eat men by a
> > third party. Men are always eaten the longest in the wind storm of a
> > century because of their nature being not necessarily supported,
> > whereas it would be an honor to support any woman out there. This
> > creates a downward trend compared with Anything. Thus the wind could
> > be proven not to relate with the sexual or masculine or feminine
> > element of men and women, but to eventually cross zero. This is thus
> > far the only progress of man. That which. Does not relate to his/her
> > genome. And as if I could forget it. Men and women are mixed in
> > masculine and feminine character but the gay has denigrated value.
>
> Gays may be freaks of nature, but that may be a way for nature to
> control population.
>
> http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/882865-ho...
>
> Sorry, I was wrong.
Hey, I may have been right after all...
"A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular"
In some societies they are repressed so they may never develop,
representing some negligible part of the population.
We cyclist may be freaks of nature for the same reason, but we are not
united like they are.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 11:30 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
On Nov 24, 1:44 pm, Tim <8.tim.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 9:06 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Wisdom must have some spice or else it would be boring. That's why so
> > few people follow this path. We need younger people to go into this.
> > "A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular"
>
> again i am spellbound monkey. i mean to hear this from you! wisdom is
> as much about that magickal timing of being a fool then becoming wise,
> a well timed joke, the doing of something that leaves people
> perplexed, then the a posterior explanation pulls it all together into
> a moment of clarity, as it is about the oldest hunting skill that
> allows even monkeys to think they can take a lion, or the lion the
> hunter, or whatever it is you are now (since you seem to be
> confused)... and that word my friend is "cunning".
I ain't finished yet...
If many men choose gays may be because girls have become too
materialistic.
For example, what girl would choose a cyclist over a driver? Not many.
And prostitution is forbidden. Ain't that funny?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: which cell phone/plan for emergency use only?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d90f7803af185259?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 10:26 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Derald wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote
>>> Derald wrote
>>>> Customer service can disable any of the features for you. Remember
>>>> that disabling text means you won't get renewal notices or SMS sent
>>>> as email and disabling voice mail means missed calls really are missed.
>>> I haven't actually checked (it just occurred to me), but it wouldbe really
>>> nice if T-Mobile could reject calls from numbers not in my phonebook.
>> Not a great idea if the local hospital or cops cant call you to tell
>> you that someone who is down there needs your assistence etc.
>> Or even just someone who happens to have a working cellphone
>> lending that phone to someone you know well who wants to call
>> you when their phone has stopped working etc.
>>> I really hate paying a dime to pick up a telemarketer call because
>>> it MIGHT be somebody I know calling from an unfamiliar number.
>>> If such calls were disabled I'd never have to worry about them :-)
>> Till you find out that hubby died without being able to talk to you etc.
>>> I know telemarketing to cellphones is illegal. So is calling people
>>> on the do-not-call list, and we all know how well that works.
> What is your point?
That the approach Bev was proposing has some very real downsides
like the ones I listed.
> My wife is the only living soul who has my cell phone number.
> No one at the police station, hospital, etc. is going to be trying
> to reach my cell phone.
Doesnt mean that thats true of everyone, so some of them will get
the downsides I listed if the cellphone telco does what Bev proposed.
> What part of "emergency use" isn't clear to you?
She wasnt just talking about emergency use phones.
> My cell phone is for me to place calls, not to receive them.
Thats not true for many cellphone users. Plenty of them dont even
bother with a landline now.
> As a rule, it isn't even turned on. Who needs it?
Someone who doesnt even have a landline anymore and who only
has the cellphone or someone who moves around quite a bit and
who prefers to be able to get phone calls most of the time.
> Who the hell wants his day interrupted with telephone calls, anyway?
Plenty who want to be callable when someone they
care about ends up in hospital and are about to die etc.
> Beside, the news that ones spouse has died is hardly an emergency or even urgent
> because what the recipient can do with or about the "news" is absolutely nothing.
Yes, but if they arent dead yet, many would prefer to be able
to talk to the person who is about to die before they die, or
even just be notified that someone they care about is in hospital
after a serious accident even if they arent about to die etc.
I've even had the cops call me on more than one ocassion and
tell me something I do want to know, like the fact that they have
some of my property that was stolen from my car by a couple
of kids that were caught quite literally walking around the streets
in the middle of the night loading up a wheelbarrow they had stolen
from somewhere, with the stuff they could get from various cars.
I would also like to be told by the cops that they had found
my stolen car quickly enough so that I could go and retrieve
the car before it gets torched or stolen again, etc etc etc.
One of my neighbours rang me and told me that it looked like
my house was on fire. Turned out that it wasnt and that it was
just an unusual situation where water was evaporating from my
1' wide roof gutters after a summer shower and it just looked
like smoke but wasnt.
I have also rang a different neighbour when I saw someone
go over the brick wall on the park side of their yard to check
if that was an intruder or if it was just a mate of one of their
kids. When I didnt get an answer to the phone call, I called
the cops and got them to check what was going on.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 10:40 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Vic Smith wrote
> Derald <derald@invalid.net> wrote
>> What is your point? My wife is the only living soul who has my cell
>> phone number. No one at the police station, hospital, etc. is going
>> to be trying to reach my cell phone. What part of "emergency use"
>> isn't clear to you? My cell phone is for me to place calls, not to
>> receive them. As a rule, it isn't even turned on. Who needs it? Who
>> the hell wants his day interrupted with telephone calls, anyway?
>> Beside, the news that ones spouse has died is hardly an emergency or
>> even urgent because what the recipient can do with or about the
>> "news" is absolutely nothing.
> Besides that, you can assign a ring tone to numbers calling that you
> care about. Ignore the rest.
Same problem. If you wife has just died before you could talk to her,
because you ignored the call from the hospital or from someone at the
scene of the accident to say that she has been involved in a serious accident...
> Too technical for me, but my son set up our home phones and my wife's
> cell phone that way.
Its got some real downsides.
> Not my cell phone though. Only answer that one when I'm in Florida
> and the kids call, because I told them to call that one to use some
> minutes instead of my wife's minutes.
Plenty only have a cellphone now.
> I hear mine ring once in a while. But I ignore it.
> Probably maxed out the "missed calls" counter.
My neighbour is glad that he isnt that stupid, I've called him a number
of times now when his house alarm has gone off, more than once
when it was a real burglar that set it off and another time when
one of his brothers had been around to use the pool, had forgotten
to lock the door as left, and I discovered the door unlocked when the
alarm went off by itself.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 11:46 am
From: Vic Smith
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:40:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Vic Smith wrote
>
>> Besides that, you can assign a ring tone to numbers calling that you
>> care about. Ignore the rest.
>
>Same problem. If you wife has just died before you could talk to her,
>because you ignored the call from the hospital or from someone at the
>scene of the accident to say that she has been involved in a serious accident...
>
So what? I have a landline.
And if my wife is out I always answer that phone.
If I'm out I check for voice mail when I get back.
>> Too technical for me, but my son set up our home phones and my wife's
>> cell phone that way.
>
>Its got some real downsides.
>
None I've seen. All good to know who's calling by the ring.
>> Not my cell phone though. Only answer that one when I'm in Florida
>> and the kids call, because I told them to call that one to use some
>> minutes instead of my wife's minutes.
>
>Plenty only have a cellphone now.
>
Yep. Son and daughter have cell only.
I have landline and cell.
Nobody calls my cell unless I've instructed them too.
>> I hear mine ring once in a while. But I ignore it.
>> Probably maxed out the "missed calls" counter.
>
>My neighbour is glad that he isnt that stupid, I've called him a number
>of times now when his house alarm has gone off, more than once
>when it was a real burglar that set it off and another time when
>one of his brothers had been around to use the pool, had forgotten
>to lock the door as left, and I discovered the door unlocked when the
>alarm went off by itself.
>
Never had a burglar bother me here.
Same could be said about a house fire or the roof blowing off.
I'll find out soon enough.
Not the reason I have a cell phone.
The cell is only for when I'm in the car going somewhere.
That's it. It's not the boss of me.
--Vic
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 12:08 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Vic Smith wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Vic Smith wrote
>>> Besides that, you can assign a ring tone to numbers calling that you
>>> care about. Ignore the rest.
>> Same problem. If you wife has just died before you could talk to her,
>> because you ignored the call from the hospital or from someone at the
>> scene of the accident to say that she has been involved in a serious accident...
> So what? I have a landline.
Plenty dont anymore. And the landline wont help you if you are
out when someone calls you from the accident scene and your
wife has given them the cellphone number to call and tell you
she's had a serious accident because she is not in any condition
to call you herself or you have had enough of a clue to include
both your landline number and the cellphone number in the car
she drives etc so someone can call you from the scene of the
accident if that is required and she isnt even conscious etc.
> And if my wife is out I always answer that phone.
Pity about when you are both out.
> If I'm out I check for voice mail when I get back.
She may be dead by then.
>>> Too technical for me, but my son set up our home
>>> phones and my wife's cell phone that way.
>> Its got some real downsides.
> None I've seen.
Yes, those events fortunately dont happen that often.
But late once its happened and she died before she can get to talk to you etc.
> All good to know who's calling by the ring.
But fucked if you are too stupid to answer the call because
its not her thats ringing personally, but someone else at the
accident scene calling on their own cellphone to tell you that
your wife is very seriously injured and cant call you herself.
>>> Not my cell phone though. Only answer that one when I'm
>>> in Florida and the kids call, because I told them to call that
>>> one to use some minutes instead of my wife's minutes.
>> Plenty only have a cellphone now.
> Yep. Son and daughter have cell only.
> I have landline and cell.
> Nobody calls my cell unless I've instructed them too.
And you may well regret that if your wife ends up in a serious
accident and you are both out and you dont have your cellphone
number included in the car so someone can call you if your wife
is incapable of calling you herself because she is too seriously
injured to do that.
>>> I hear mine ring once in a while. But I ignore it.
>>> Probably maxed out the "missed calls" counter.
>> My neighbour is glad that he isnt that stupid, I've called him
>> a number of times now when his house alarm has gone off,
>> more than once when it was a real burglar that set it off and
>> another time when one of his brothers had been around to
>> use the pool, had forgotten to lock the door as left, and I
>> discovered the door unlocked when the alarm went off by itself.
> Never had a burglar bother me here.
Thats what he said the first time too.
Thats what I said the first time it happened too.
> Same could be said about a house fire or the roof blowing off.
> I'll find out soon enough.
In his case it was much better to find out while the crim was still catchable.
> Not the reason I have a cell phone.
> The cell is only for when I'm in the car going somewhere.
And that can be when your wife has been involved in a serious accident
and isnt capable of calling you herself or of even telling someone that
you are too stupid to answer your cell if it isnt her calling.
> That's it. It's not the boss of me.
It aint the boss of you if someone is telling you that your wife has
been involved in a serious accident and cant call you herself either.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: $ Spending Welfare Money to Buy Presents $
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9f2459f898fbe082?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 10:35 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Just Visiting wrote
> gordonb.wsuq3@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote
>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money
>>> but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
>> Once you've paid someone taxpayer money without strings,
>> it's no longer taxpayer money, it's THEIR money, and they
>> can use it the way they want (subject to legality: *some*
>> drugs, like insulin, are legal). Some presents are probably
>> things they need anyway, like clothing or food.
> Money from Welfare is not earned from working a job.
> So, even though they're given money to spend, it still comes
> from the taxpayer's pocket. It should be spent responsibly
> and not carelessly. Welfare was not intended to be a lifestyle
> for people that are physically and mentally able to work.
Its also provided to those who cant find any work because
the clowns have been allowed by the govt to completely
implode the entire world financial system, again.
>> It's a very bad idea to put so many strings on that the average
>> person can't use much of their payment: this much has to go for
>> peanuts (but they're allergic), this much has to go for diapers
>> (but nobody in the family needs them), this much has to go for
>> dresses (but nobody in the family is female, and if the men wear
>> them in public they may be arrested), and this much has to go for
>> rent (but they own their own home). Meanwhile, one family member
>> really needs medication that's not on the list, and can't get it.
>> Now, which set of bloodsucking leeches that get paid with
>> taxpayer money did you NOT want to buy presents?
>> President Obama
>> Teachers
>> Congress
>> Mail carriers
>> The Military
>> Seniors on Social Security
>> Defense contractors
>> Police Officers
>> The Unemployed on Unemployment
>> People on Welfare
> There has to be some responsibility and accountability
> for Welfare and Unemployment spending.
It would cost even more of the taxpayers money to keep
a check on everything that the money is spent on and to
ensure that none of it ever gets spent on presents.
> "Working" in the public sector doesn't require the same restrictions
> as they are considered employment opportunities, not a financial
> hardship. The private sector is getting sick of freeloaders, wasteful
> spending and money disappearing in the public sector! It's never ending.
Pity no one has been able to work out how to avoid
it without pissing even more money against the wall.
And the voters wont support your line that no taxpayer money should
ever be spent on anything you dont approve of, particularly when some
of the recipients are incapable of working or cant find a job because
the govt has been stupid enough to allow the clowns to completely
implode the entire world financial system, again.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 10:52 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Bob Cratchet wrote
> Just Visiting wrote
>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>> unless these are some of the presents.
> Life's necessities include things other than just a loaf of bread and a can of spam.
Presents are never a necessity.
> If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy then life is not worth the living.
Life without presents is certainly worth living for anyone with even half a clue.
> Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it.
Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with unemployment benefits where
the recipient could have made their own provision for time between jobs.
> Now however those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all purposes cheats.
It isnt just about cheats and those who truly need it.
There is a MUCH bigger group who dont bother to make any
provision for the inevitable time between jobs because they know
that the govt will provide a handout for the time between jobs.
> Scourge the Cheats
Easier said than done.
> but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
No thanks on those out of work.
> Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
> Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by
> reducing America and Americans to a Globalist hell on earth
You wouldnt know what a real hell on earth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> of a "more sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels Socialists that think Americans have/had too much, and
> "Americans have to learn to pay a lot more for a lot less."
Mindlessly silly. The modern reality is that you pay a
lot less for a hell of a lot more with most consumer goods.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 11:02 am
From: Bob Cratchet <-@newsp.irit>
On 11/24/2011 1:52 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Bob Cratchet wrote
>> Just Visiting wrote
>
>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's
>>> better than spending taxpayer money on drugs, prostitution and porn
>>> unless these are some of the presents.
>
>> Life's necessities include things other than just a loaf of bread and a can of spam.
>
> Presents are never a necessity.
>
>> If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy then life is not worth the living.
>
> Life without presents is certainly worth living for anyone with even half a clue.
>
>> Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it.
>
> Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with unemployment benefits where
> the recipient could have made their own provision for time between jobs.
>
>> Now however those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all purposes cheats.
>
> It isnt just about cheats and those who truly need it.
>
> There is a MUCH bigger group who dont bother to make any
> provision for the inevitable time between jobs because they know
> that the govt will provide a handout for the time between jobs.
>
>> Scourge the Cheats
>
> Easier said than done.
>
>> but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
>
> No thanks on those out of work.
>
>> Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
>> Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by
>> reducing America and Americans to a Globalist hell on earth
>
> You wouldnt know what a real hell on earth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>
>> of a "more sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels Socialists that think Americans have/had too much, and
>> "Americans have to learn to pay a lot more for a lot less."
>
> Mindlessly silly. The modern reality is that you pay a
> lot less for a hell of a lot more with most consumer goods.
>
>
You can only grasp half of the truth?
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 11:28 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Bob Cratchet wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bob Cratchet wrote
>>> Just Visiting wrote
>>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>>>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
>>> Life's necessities include things other than just a loaf of bread
>>> and a can of spam.
>> Presents are never a necessity.
>>> If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy then
>>> life is not worth the living.
>> Life without presents is certainly worth living for anyone with even half a clue.
>>> Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it.
>> Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with unemployment benefits where the recipient could have made their own
>> provision for time between jobs.
>>> Now however those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all purposes cheats.
>> It isnt just about cheats and those who truly need it.
>> There is a MUCH bigger group who dont bother to make any
>> provision for the inevitable time between jobs because they know
>> that the govt will provide a handout for the time between jobs.
>>> Scourge the Cheats
>> Easier said than done.
>>> but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
>> No thanks on those out of work.
>>> Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
>>> Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by reducing America and Americans to a Globalist
>>> hell on earth
>> You wouldnt know what a real hell on earth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>>> of a "more sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels
>>> Socialists that think Americans have/had too much, and "Americans
>>> have to learn to pay a lot more for a lot less."
>> Mindlessly silly. The modern reality is that you pay a
>> lot less for a hell of a lot more with most consumer goods.
> You can only grasp half of the truth?
You wouldnt know what the real truth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
The US unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and
illegal immigration rate and the participartion rate (percentage of the working
age group actually working) at an all time historic high, just before the clowns
were allowed to completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
THATS the problem, allowing the clowns to completely implode the entire
world financial system, again, not globalisation which has been going on
for centurys now and which has delivered you the magnificent improvement
in the real standard of living even you have seen since say 1900 or even 1950.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 11:38 am
From: Bob Cratchet <-@newsp.irit>
On 11/24/2011 2:28 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Bob Cratchet wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Bob Cratchet wrote
>>>> Just Visiting wrote
>
>>>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>>>>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
>
>>>> Life's necessities include things other than just a loaf of bread
>>>> and a can of spam.
>
>>> Presents are never a necessity.
>
>>>> If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy then
>>>> life is not worth the living.
>
>>> Life without presents is certainly worth living for anyone with even half a clue.
>
>>>> Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it.
>
>>> Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with unemployment benefits where the recipient could have made their own
>>> provision for time between jobs.
>
>>>> Now however those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all purposes cheats.
>
>>> It isnt just about cheats and those who truly need it.
>
>>> There is a MUCH bigger group who dont bother to make any
>>> provision for the inevitable time between jobs because they know
>>> that the govt will provide a handout for the time between jobs.
>
>>>> Scourge the Cheats
>
>>> Easier said than done.
>
>>>> but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
>
>>> No thanks on those out of work.
>
>>>> Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
>>>> Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by reducing America and Americans to a Globalist
>>>> hell on earth
>
>>> You wouldnt know what a real hell on earth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>
>>>> of a "more sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels
>>>> Socialists that think Americans have/had too much, and "Americans
>>>> have to learn to pay a lot more for a lot less."
>
>>> Mindlessly silly. The modern reality is that you pay a
>>> lot less for a hell of a lot more with most consumer goods.
>
>> You can only grasp half of the truth?
>
> You wouldnt know what the real truth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>
> The US unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and
> illegal immigration rate and the participartion rate (percentage of the working
> age group actually working) at an all time historic high, just before the clowns
> were allowed to completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
>
> THATS the problem, allowing the clowns to completely implode the entire
> world financial system, again, not globalisation which has been going on
> for centurys now and which has delivered you the magnificent improvement
> in the real standard of living even you have seen since say 1900 or even 1950.
>
>
I see you can cite numbers that do not reflect, those that gave up, took
what little retirement they had early, or not filing because they
exhausted unemployment benefits.
You have and agenda not facts.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 11:55 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Bob Cratchet wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bob Cratchet wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bob Cratchet wrote
>>>>> Just Visiting wrote
>>>>>> It doesn't seem right to buy presents with taxpayer money but it's better than spending taxpayer money on drugs,
>>>>>> prostitution and porn unless these are some of the presents.
>>>>> Life's necessities include things other than just a loaf of bread
>>>>> and a can of spam.
>>>> Presents are never a necessity.
>>>>> If you can't nourish the soul and have a little reason for joy
>>>>> then life is not worth the living.
>>>> Life without presents is certainly worth living for anyone with
>>>> even half a clue.
>>>>> Welfare is most often given to those that truly need it.
>>>> Thats very arguable indeed, particularly with unemployment
>>>> benefits where the recipient could have made their own provision
>>>> for time between jobs.
>>>>> Now however those Folks have been lumped in with the, for all
>>>>> purposes cheats.
>>>> It isnt just about cheats and those who truly need it.
>>>> There is a MUCH bigger group who dont bother to make any
>>>> provision for the inevitable time between jobs because they know
>>>> that the govt will provide a handout for the time between jobs.
>>>>> Scourge the Cheats
>>>> Easier said than done.
>>>>> but provide for our unfortunate and out of work.
>>>> No thanks on those out of work.
>>>>> Scourage is a good word to use for those that have taken American
>>>>> Enterprise, Jobs and our future to "Level the global paying field" by reducing America and Americans to a
>>>>> Globalist hell on earth
>>>> You wouldnt know what a real hell on earth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>>>>> of a "more sustainable Global economy", as designed by Brussels
>>>>> Socialists that think Americans have/had too much, and "Americans
>>>>> have to learn to pay a lot more for a lot less."
>>>> Mindlessly silly. The modern reality is that you pay a
>>>> lot less for a hell of a lot more with most consumer goods.
>>> You can only grasp half of the truth?
>> You wouldnt know what the real truth was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>> The US unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate and the participartion
>> rate (percentage of the working age group actually working) at an all time historic high, just before the clowns were
>> allowed to completely implode the entire world financial system, again.
>> THATS the problem, allowing the clowns to completely implode the entire world financial system, again, not
>> globalisation which has been going on for centurys now and which has delivered you the magnificent improvement in the
>> real standard of living even you have seen since say 1900 or even 1950.
> I see you can cite numbers that do not reflect, those that gave up,
> took what little retirement they had early, or not filing because they
> exhausted unemployment benefits.
That number isnt those on unemployment benefits, fool.
> You have and agenda
Corse you dont have anything like that yourself, eh ?
> not facts.
Thats certainly true of you.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why is Pot so expensive?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8f5f3c5d26c577da?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 12:42 pm
From: A Veteran
well, if don't grow it yourself, how difficult could it be to grow a
Weed?
and O.T.
States Rights!
In article <jamabu$qaa$1@dont-email.me>, Hisler <Hisler@cocks.net>
wrote:
> On 11/24/2011 8:46 AM, Deucalion wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:30:58 -0700, A Veteran<georgeswk@toast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ron Paul: Pot Policy Should Be Set By The States
> >> This sort of thing is so much fun to watch. If the Republican Party is
> >> ever going to crack the youth vote, they have to start talking this way
> >> about the drug war. It's just another big-government program. And it
> >> violates all the principles conservatives espouse in other areas. The
> >> challenge to Obamacare rests on the same legal argument as the challenge
> >> to the federal drug war. But no one else on the stage has either the
> >> brains or the bollocks to say this sort of thing out loud.
> >>
> >> http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/11/ron_paul_on_pot.html
> >
> > While I agree with Ron Paul's position on drug laws, it is not the
> > policy of the Republican Party to limit the size of government when
> > they are the majority. Nor is it their policy for the federal
> > government to be less intrusive in citizens daily lives when they are
> > in charge. You only have to look at the six years of the Bush
> > administration when the Republicans controlled Congress to see how
> > much they like to intrude into the lives of the people.
> >
> > However, if you want to pretend that this example was just a Bush
> > action that was required by the "War of Terrorism," you can go back to
> > the Regan administration and look at how much civil liberties eroded
> > when we began the "War on Drugs."
>
> A "Progressive" acquaintance sent me this:
>
> Ron Paul has been totally ignored by the mainstream corporate press
> because he has never been a Washington insider. He is hated by the
> leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties, who we all know by
> now are completely controlled by the corporate
> military/medical/chemical/war machine. He is the new breed of political
> leader, who like Ralph Nader knows how to think for himself and has
> been a lifetime student of history. And it is likely that Ralph Nader
> will support him in his campaign for President. Ron Paul is also closely
> aligned with Cynthia McKinney and her anti-militarism efforts. There is
> even a possibility that if he wins the Republican primary, Ron Paul will
> choose Cynthia as his VP. Ron served in the Vietnam War as a medic and
> knows first hand the horrors of war. He is a humanitarian who worked for
> twenty years as a doctor, before the HMOs destroyed the medical system
> by jacking up costs and making it unaffordable.
>
>
>
> The D's and R's are painting a false picture of Ron Paul since they know
> he is a brilliant anti-war voice who will cut the military budget by
> half and return our civil liberties, ending US torture around the world
> and US weapon sales and wars. His libertarian views are simply an
> acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve system has ripped off the
> American workers for way too long and needs to be replaced by government
> control of the monetary system, rather than private control by an
> unelected cabal that has no allegiance to the American people. For this
> he has been lambasted by the media, which works every day to perpetuate
> US wars abroad and angry dissent at home. As a long-time Libertarian,
> Ron Paul, will have a good chance to get that party's nomination for the
> general election if he loses to the corporate Republican (probably
> Romney) in the primary. In a three-way race, with Ron Paul playing the
> role of Ross Perot, Ron Paul would have an excellent chance of defeating
> the war candidates, Obama and Romney!
>
>
>
> Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of the 21st Century. The only real
> difference is that Ron Paul has a chance of winning! Ralph could only
> get 3% at best! You can bet that people like Ralph Nader and Cynthia
> McKinney will be part of a Ron Paul administration if Ron Paul is
> elected. Unfortunately, Ralph Nader will never be elected President but
> giving Ralph a direct voice in US policies will be the next best thing.
>
>
>
> Ron Paul clearly sees the need for government programs, but only where
> necessary. Can you imagine how much money will be available for social
> programs if we cut the military budget in half? Not to mention all the
> lives of foreigners who are being destroyed by US wars and weapons sales?
>
>
>
> Please look more closely at Ron Paul's speeches and politics and you
> will realize that he may be the last caring person we will have the
> chance to elect president for a long time.
>
>
>
> Let's not give up this opportunity. Do not be tricked (again) by the
> corporate media and the two-party corporate cronies. Ron Paul is the
> real deal. He is an intelligent, experienced civil rights advocate!
>
>
>
> For peace and justice,
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
But, isn't it highly unlikely that the "Gawd Oldster's Party would
nominate him? and if he went 3rd party ,wouldn't that hand it to Obama?
--
Karma, What a concept!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 24 2011 2:40 pm
From: Derald
A Veteran <georgeswk@toast.net> wrote:
>But, isn't it highly unlikely that the "Gawd Oldster's Party would
>nominate him? and if he went 3rd party ,wouldn't that hand it to Obama?
LOL! Did you actually read that load of crap that you posted? "Ron
Paul is the Ralph Nader of the 21st Century", indeed. Whoever wrote that
might be as looney as Paul who is major whacked. The worst thing that
old coot could do is to sprout a hair and run as a 3rd party candidate.
Paul could be the "Ross Perot of the 21st Century".
Besides, what does that have to do with pot prices? Pot is
expensive because it is illegal and because people pay the prices.
--
Derald
==============================================================================
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
