Frugal Living: 14 new messages in 7 topics

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

14 new messages in 7 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

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

Rick <rickajho@rcn.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, plenty build houses like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found the 2007 NASA budget request, at:

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

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

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

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

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

- Don Klipstyein (don@misty.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.grobebooks.com

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

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

ChairMan wrote:

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

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

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

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

dfr wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

14 new messages in 7 topics - digest

No comments: