http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Woman is content living in 84-sq. ft. tiny dream home. - 5 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/911886124117ed11?hl=en
* Wealth on the public dole - 19 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4751bd64130f7462?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Woman is content living in 84-sq. ft. tiny dream home.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/911886124117ed11?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 6:06 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
mail3277198@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com wrote:
> On Jul 16, 4:55 am, not the moderator <lavenderlo...@AZGOV.com/us>
> wrote:
>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 5:29 pm, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Electricity from solar.
>>>> Propane from a small container.
>>>> $10k for the entire house.
>>>> No mortgage...
>>
>>> It's very possible. After all, lots of Americans - especially
>>> men - for generations have CHOSEN to live for days at a time in
>>> small hunting cabins, fishing cabins, po-up vacation trailers, etc.
>>
>>> No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>>
>> Lots of criminals live in 8x10 ft. cells and survive quite well. They
>> have a sink and commode, a nice bed to entertain their "buddy", and
>> have meals prepared for them. The cells are climate controlled and
>> they go out to eat. The taxpayer picks up the bill. Unfortunately,
>> the cells aren't mobile, and they aren't allowed to have campfires
>> or pets.
>
> I think that there are shed kitsat the home depot that are just a bit
> bigger than this house. They don't cost 10k either. One could easily
> live in one of those if the climate allowed it.
Makes more sense to start with a shipping container and
replace the metal doors with a decent glass patio door etc.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:06 pm
From: Greg
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:47:58 -0700,
mail3277198@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com wrote:
>I think that there are shed kitsat the home depot that are just a bit
>bigger than this house. They don't cost 10k either. One could easily
>live in one of those if the climate allowed it.
Those last five words are the problem. In most places, the climate
won't allow it. Those sheds are not insulated and the ones I've seen
are quite shabbily constructed.
The houses at the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company are larger than the 84
sq ft house, and cost more than $10K, but are far better designed and
constructed and well worth the price. I would buy the plans and do the
construction myself, but not everyone is into that.
Greg
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:33 pm
From: "aemeijers"
"Greg" <kismet2463@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:gcqsb3pv7d8umkcfpqku7v6uqamkrh9658@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:47:58 -0700,
> mail3277198@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com wrote:
>
>>I think that there are shed kitsat the home depot that are just a bit
>>bigger than this house. They don't cost 10k either. One could easily
>>live in one of those if the climate allowed it.
>
> Those last five words are the problem. In most places, the climate
> won't allow it. Those sheds are not insulated and the ones I've seen
> are quite shabbily constructed.
>
> The houses at the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company are larger than the 84
> sq ft house, and cost more than $10K, but are far better designed and
> constructed and well worth the price. I would buy the plans and do the
> construction myself, but not everyone is into that.
>
I can't believe this thread has dragged on this long. Did anyone look at the
pictures? Her 'dream home' is a home-made camping trailer, nothing more.
A used airstream trailer comes to mind as an off-the-shelf viable
alternative.
aem sends...
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:15 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Greg <kismet2463@mypacks.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:47:58 -0700,
> mail3277198@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com wrote:
>
>> I think that there are shed kitsat the home depot that are just a bit
>> bigger than this house. They don't cost 10k either. One could easily
>> live in one of those if the climate allowed it.
>
> Those last five words are the problem. In most places,
> the climate won't allow it. Those sheds are not insulated
Its easy to insulate them.
> and the ones I've seen are quite shabbily constructed.
Yeah, I'd start with a shipping container myself.
> The houses at the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company are larger
> than the 84 sq ft house, and cost more than $10K, but are far
> better designed and constructed and well worth the price.
Not compared with a shipping container they arent.
You can get those already insulated, the ones that are refrigerated.
> I would buy the plans and do the construction myself, but not everyone is into that.
I'd use a shipping container myself, hell of a lot easier to do and much cheaper too.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:20 pm
From: Greg
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:15:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Greg <kismet2463@mypacks.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:47:58 -0700,
>> mail3277198@gorillaswithdirtyarmpits.com wrote:
>>
>>> I think that there are shed kitsat the home depot that are just a bit
>>> bigger than this house. They don't cost 10k either. One could easily
>>> live in one of those if the climate allowed it.
>>
>> Those last five words are the problem. In most places,
>> the climate won't allow it. Those sheds are not insulated
>
>Its easy to insulate them.
Opinions differ on that.
>> and the ones I've seen are quite shabbily constructed.
>
>Yeah, I'd start with a shipping container myself.
Too ugly. Not designed for living.
>> The houses at the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company are larger
>> than the 84 sq ft house, and cost more than $10K, but are far
>> better designed and constructed and well worth the price.
>
>Not compared with a shipping container they arent.
Yes, even compared to a shipping container, they are.
>> I would buy the plans and do the construction myself, but not everyone is into that.
>
>I'd use a shipping container myself, hell of a lot easier to do and much cheaper too.
Much harder to find an area that will allow them, too. We don't have
many warehouse districts where I live.
Greg
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wealth on the public dole
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4751bd64130f7462?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:04 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article <065sb3p6jufsqmansa5spd2kp24dccb8uh@4ax.com>,
Steve <otm@wdc.inv> wrote:
> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> >WASHINGTON (AP) &lsqauo; The Federal Reserve, trying to calm turmoil on Wall
> >Street, announced Friday that it will pump as much money as needed into
> >the U.S. financial system to help overcome the ill effects of a
> >spreading credit crunch.
>
> Like they say - when you owe $100,000, the bank owns you. When you
> owe $100,000,000, you own the bank...
I wonder why conservatives didn't say that about all the "welfare queens
driving cadillacs in harlem". Remember welfare reform? Remember the
hard-nosed view of impoverished single mothers? Remember the vicious
spit and bile cast upon their helpless children? Remember bankruptcy
reform? Remember the baleful eye cast upon debtors?
Now we are supposed to say, que sera sera to zillions of taxpayer
dollars "infused" (meaning GIVEN away) to banks and yacht owners? Just
because they are SCARED of what might happen? That takes a special kind
of cowardice-- the kind that gets us what we deserve.
Why is conservative bullshit good just for poor people? Please, someone
explain to me.
== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:09 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> The word 'reserve' is there for a reason.
Really? And where did this "reserve" come from. Please tell us.
== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:11 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> There are no individuals receiving those funds.
Au contraire. There is nobody BUT individuals taking this money. They
may hide behind facades of columns, inside steel and glass skyscrapers,
but they are indeed individuals signing the papers, shaking the hands
and crossing the palms with silver.
== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:11 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> It isnt goint to those who are losing their homes.
Right. It is going to those taking homes from people.
== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:17 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> Thats arguable too. You can make a case that its the financial institutions
> that were stupid enough to produce that securitization of sub prime loans
> and the regulatory system that allowed that terminal stupidity.
I argue all that and far more. I argue that this "crisis" was
meticulously planned and carried out to deliberately transfer massive
wealth from one sector of society to another. And anyone with eyes can
see it.
Mark my words: all the money being transferred right this moment is
predetermined to disappear in a flash of "lost value". And the people
whose money it really is will lap it up, nodding knowingly while their
neighbor's children go hungry and homeless.
Churches of every denomination will swoop in to feast upon the economic
carrion, like the vultures they really are, and every American's
self-respect will suffer.
== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:18 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article <YvadnfQ3Vb_8XyDbnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Nothing new, lots of wealthy companies are welfare queens.
Oh, that makes it okay then.
== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:20 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article <YvadnfQ3Vb_8XyDbnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Right down the road from me we (the taxpayers) are leveling a mountain
> for a new Walmart. They have an existing store not far away where we did
> the same thing not a long time ago. We also put in the access road,
> utilities and gave them a 9 year tax exemption. The only reason they are
> moving is the tax exemption is about to expire.
The only reason any of that is happening is because YOU and I and the
rest of those reading this are sniveling, indecisive cowards who deserve
to have our families used as doormats by relatively well-off walmart
shoppers.
== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:25 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article <dkivi.34200$rH6.10137@newsfe22.lga>,
clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> I not sure how pumping money into the economy helps the current loan
> problems.
It helps "calm" the lenders, the speculators, and all the other greasy,
cannibalistic capitalists of whom all Americans think so highly. If they
are calmly receiving their extra-large, super-sized helping of YOUR
money every day, they are less likely to make life unpleasant for those
near them, like the massively-powerful and influential infants terrible
they really are at heart.
== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:29 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> Its just increasing liquidity, just like happened post 9/11.
Bwahahahahaha.
And right after the Enron debacle. And the first Gulf war. And the
savings and loan scandal. And the oil crisis. and the oil crisis before
that. and the vietnam war before that.
5jesus, have I missed any?
How stupid do you have to be to believe the idiotic, repetitive
justification for stealing money from the public to give to staggeringly
wealthy, record-profit-winning, golden-parachuted, mansion-ensconced,
private-jet-owning individuals and their spoiled kids and trophy wives?
== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:48 pm
From: "qwrt"
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article
> <46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>>> In article <bearclaw-902DC4.04295611082007@news.supernews.com>,
>>> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) < The Federal Reserve, trying to calm turmoil on Wall
>>>> Street, announced Friday that it will pump as much money as needed
>>>> into the U.S. financial system to help overcome the ill effects of a
>>>> spreading credit crunch.
>>>>
>>>> The Fed, in a short statement, said it will provide "reserves as
>>>> necessary" to help the markets safely make their way. The central
>>>> bank did not provide details but said it would do all it can to
>>>> "facilitate the orderly functioning of financial markets."
>>>>
>>>> The Fed pushed $38 billion in temporary reserves into the system
>>>> Friday, on top of a similar move the day before.
>>>
>>> more at:
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/10/ap4008288.html
>>>
>>> While reading the story, ask yourself:
>>> Where is all this money-- essentially welfare for the rich--
>> No it isnt. Its just increasing liquidity, just like happened post 9/11.
>>> coming from?
>> The word 'reserve' is there for a reason.
>>> Who is getting it? (don't be fooled by bank names and institutions;
>>> look at the individuals who will be receiving these funds)
>> There are no individuals receiving those funds.
> Au contraire. There is nobody BUT individuals taking this money.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a clue about what the banking system and liquidity is about.
> They may hide behind facades of columns, inside steel and glass
> skyscrapers, but they are indeed individuals signing the papers,
> shaking the hands and crossing the palms with silver.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a clue about what the banking system and liquidity is about.
== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 7:50 pm
From: "qwrt"
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article
> <46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
>
>> It isnt goint to those who are losing their homes.
>
> Right. It is going to those taking homes from people.
Wrong, its just an increase in the liquidity in the banking system, with
the banks paying the usual interest rate for those SHORT TERM funds.
And it aint those banks that are taking homes from people either.
== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:01 pm
From: "qwrt"
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article
> <46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
>>> Why are they getting it, instead of those in danger of losing their homes?
>> It isnt goint to those who are losing their homes.
>>> (considering that "they" are the ones who created the mess to begin with)
>> Thats arguable too. You can make a case that its the financial institutions
>> that were stupid enough to produce that securitization of sub prime loans
>> and the regulatory system that allowed that terminal stupidity.
> I argue all that and far more.
Trouble is that you can't even manage to grasp that the most recent
increase in the liquidity in the banking system isnt even going to the
operations that did that securitization of sub prime loans.
> I argue that this "crisis" was meticulously planned and carried out to
> deliberately transfer massive wealth from one sector of society to another.
Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
And there is no massive transfer of wealth from one sector of society to another anyway.
> And anyone with eyes can see it.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Mark my words:
No thanks, you can't even manage to grasp that the most recent
increase in the liquidity in the banking system isnt even going to
the operations that did that securitization of sub prime loans.
> all the money being transferred right this moment is
> predetermined to disappear in a flash of "lost value".
Thats a different matter entirely to that being deliberately planned, let alone
actually being a transfer of wealth from one sector of society to another.
Its just gone, just like happens with a market crash.
> And the people whose money it really is will lap it up, nodding
> knowingly while their neighbor's children go hungry and homeless.
More utterly silly pig ignorant silly stuff. There are no kids going hungry,
the problem is that they ALL shovel too much food into their mouths.
And there are no kids without homes as a result of the securitization of sub
prime loans, those who loose money as a result are those who had money
to put into the fund that were stupid enough to engage in that sort of activity
like the Bear Stearns funds that went down the tubes very spectacularly indeed.
> Churches of every denomination will swoop in to feast upon the economic carrion,
> like the vultures they really are, and every American's self-respect will suffer.
Nope, only the fools who havent got a clue about what has happened, like you.
== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:04 pm
From: "qwrt"
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article
> <46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
>
>> Its just increasing liquidity, just like happened post 9/11.
> Bwahahahahaha.
Village eejut immitations cut no mustard.
> And right after the Enron debacle. And the first Gulf war. And the
> savings and loan scandal. And the oil crisis. and the oil crisis
> before that. and the vietnam war before that.
None of those had the reserve increase liquidity like they did last week.
> 5jesus, have I missed any?
> How stupid do you have to be to believe the idiotic,
> repetitive justification for stealing money from the public
That aint what happened last week.
> to give to staggeringly wealthy, record-profit-winning,
> golden-parachuted, mansion-ensconced, private-jet-owning
> individuals and their spoiled kids and trophy wives?
That in spades. They have lost a lot more as a result
of the securitization of sub prime loans than anyone else.
== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:05 pm
From: "qwrt"
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article
> <46be04ce$0$22583$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
>
>> The word 'reserve' is there for a reason.
> Really?
Yep.
> And where did this "reserve" come from. Please tell us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency
== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:11 pm
From: "qwrt"
bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <dkivi.34200$rH6.10137@newsfe22.lga>,
> clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>> I not sure how pumping money into the economy helps the current loan
>> problems.
>
> It helps "calm" the lenders, the speculators, and all the other greasy,
> cannibalistic capitalists of whom all Americans think so highly.
It actually does the exact opposite, because its the proof that
there is a massive problem with liquidity in the banking system.
The real reason its done is to prevent the short term money
market rates from spiking very spectacularly indeed.
> If they are calmly receiving their extra-large,
> super-sized helping of YOUR money every day,
They cant do that if you dont have any funds in the operations
that have been stupid enough to securitize sub prime loans,
and dont have any money in the stock market either.
If you have just got a prime loan, or have surplus funds in
any of the money markets, you benefit from that implosion
because risk has just been sensibly repriced.
> they are less likely to make life unpleasant for those near them, like the
> massively-powerful and influential infants terrible they really are at heart.
Yeah, yeah, its all jews conniving in smoke filled rooms...
== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:44 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be77ff$0$22607$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> Trouble is that you can't even manage to grasp that the most recent
> increase in the liquidity in the banking system isnt even going to the
> operations that did that securitization of sub prime loans.
No, the trouble is that people like you prefer to pretend that the
"liquidity" (why can't you just say "money", boy? Speaking plainly just
a wee bit too dangerous for you and your like at the moment?) is not
going anywhere. It is going somewhere. lt is REAL money. And it belongs
to other people who need it more than incompetent lenders.
== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:45 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be77ff$0$22607$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Yeah, that $38 billion and lots more where that came from, that doesn't
really mean anything.
== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:48 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be77ff$0$22607$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> No thanks, you can't even manage to grasp that the most recent
> increase in the liquidity in the banking system isnt even going to
> the operations that did that securitization of sub prime loans.
I don't need to "grasp" any of your preschool rhetoric to cut through it
like a chainsaw through balsa wood. Nor does anyone else. Nobody cares
if AIG or WAMU go belly up. The money is going to their financiers, who
developed and gave birth to the entire industry. You know it. I know it.
And everyone else will know it if I have anything to say about it. It is
NOT their money.
== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 11 2007 8:53 pm
From: bearclaw@cruller.invalid
In article
<46be77ff$0$22607$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"qwrt" <qwrt@dfr.com> wrote:
> Its just gone, just like happens with a market crash.
There it is, people: in his mealy-mouthed way, he is talking about YOUR
money and mine.
*EXACTLY* what he said during the Enron theft. And your money
disappeared. Your kid's school probably cut music or art classes. Your
roads went longer without repair. But you could borrow money on easier
terms (not that anyone financed that development nor actually thought it
through).
*EXACTLY* what he said during the S&L theft. Whoops! There goes your
money, too! How much do you suppose you would have right now if your
chunk were invested or saved?
But that's okay, everyone. Just sit back and take it right up the ass
like good citizens.
==============================================================================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment