http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Gas Prices - 13 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0ee1641a39c5a013?hl=en
* Camcorder Hard Drive - Find Tips - SALES on Camcorders all Brand Names - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/821287311dc14324?hl=en
* The Grocery Game is a wiener - 7 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7d045befeb1a340a?hl=en
* Cheap Armani Versace Burberry Sunglasses, Discount Crocs Chanel LV Sandals -
1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3d8b97e5b3d182f0?hl=en
* Food shortage ethanol follies, I've planted a food garden. - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c2b74d91aeaefb6f?hl=en
* Clothes iron face cleaning? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9f865634935d2c6e?hl=en
* I Don't Even Buy Organic And Am Paying $1.10 For An Apple!!! - 2 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b9e63977d717a2cc?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gas Prices
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0ee1641a39c5a013?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 11:50 am
From: clams_casino
George wrote:
>
> And the best part is that roads already have one of the fairest tax
> systems going with the liquid fuels taxes. I am in PA and our governor
> has been trying for years to turn I-80 over to the mega bureaucratic
> turnpike commission that is overflowing with high paid appointed jobs
> and make it a toll road. All of this so he can look good (and payback
> his friends since he makes the turnpike appointments) because the road
> maintenance would be removed from the states' budget and he can claim
> he is a genius because he "lowered spending". Then everyone will have
> to pay more to cover the cost of the building and operation of toll
> collection systems.
Actually, tolls are the best way to pay for the roads. Those who use
them pay. Those who don't aren't subsidizing those who do.
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 12:35 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> wrote:
> scharf.steven@geemail.com (SMS) wrote
>> I don't know where you got the idea that new cars are only
>> for the wealthy. In reality they are solidly for the middle class.
> If you can pay cash for a new car, you meet *my* definition of wealthy.
Then your definition of wealthy is stupid. Thats nothing like wealthy.
> If you can't pay cash for a new car, you can't afford it.
Depends entirely on your circumstances and what you are paying for the loan.
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 12:38 pm
From: "2345" <2345@sam.com>
h wrote
> Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> wrote
>> scharf.steven@geemail.com (SMS) says...
>>> I don't know where you got the idea that new cars are only for the wealthy. In reality they are solidly for the
>>> middle class.
>> If you can pay cash for a new car, you meet *my* definition of wealthy.
> Anyone who buys a new car meets *my* definition of stupid.
More fool you. Some of us can trivially afford it and prefer
to spend half a day or so getting the best price instead
of much longer finding a good value used car instead.
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 2:43 pm
From: George
clams_casino wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>
>> And the best part is that roads already have one of the fairest tax
>> systems going with the liquid fuels taxes. I am in PA and our governor
>> has been trying for years to turn I-80 over to the mega bureaucratic
>> turnpike commission that is overflowing with high paid appointed jobs
>> and make it a toll road. All of this so he can look good (and payback
>> his friends since he makes the turnpike appointments) because the road
>> maintenance would be removed from the states' budget and he can claim
>> he is a genius because he "lowered spending". Then everyone will have
>> to pay more to cover the cost of the building and operation of toll
>> collection systems.
>
>
> Actually, tolls are the best way to pay for the roads. Those who use
> them pay. Those who don't aren't subsidizing those who do.
I think you missed the point. Liquid fuels taxes are the best way for
exactly the reason you stated. You need to buy fuel so there is a simple
way to collect the tax. The more you use the roads the more fuel you
need to buy. Tolls introduce an another entire bureaucracy just to
collect an additional tax. In my state the highly bureaucratic turnpike
commission gets the liquid fuels based on vehicle miles driven and class
plus the tolls to pay for their bureaucracy.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 2:57 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
> clams_casino wrote
>> George wrote
>>> And the best part is that roads already have one of the fairest tax
>>> systems going with the liquid fuels taxes. I am in PA and our
>>> governor has been trying for years to turn I-80 over to the mega
>>> bureaucratic turnpike commission that is overflowing with high paid
>>> appointed jobs and make it a toll road. All of this so he can look
>>> good (and payback his friends since he makes the turnpike
>>> appointments) because the road maintenance would be removed from
>>> the states' budget and he can claim he is a genius because he
>>> "lowered spending". Then everyone will have to pay more to cover
>>> the cost of the building and operation of toll collection systems.
>> Actually, tolls are the best way to pay for the roads. Those who
>> use them pay. Those who don't aren't subsidizing those who do.
> I think you missed the point. Liquid fuels taxes are the best way for exactly the reason you stated. You need to buy
> fuel so there is a simple way to collect the tax. The more you use the roads the more fuel you need to buy.
The trouble with that approach, even tho its by far the most
efficient way to raise the revenue, is that there is no way to force
the politicians to spend that money raised that way on the roads.
> Tolls introduce an another entire bureaucracy just to collect an additional tax.
Yes, but its easier to force the money raised be spent on that road,
and you can change driving behaviour with the toll charges too.
> In my state the highly bureaucratic turnpike commission gets the liquid fuels based on vehicle miles driven and class
> plus the tolls to pay for their bureaucracy.
Makes more sense to not allow them to have the bureaucracy.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:04 pm
From: tmclone@searchmachine.com
On May 8, 3:38 pm, "2345" <2...@sam.com> wrote:
> h wrote
>
> > Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com> wrote
> >> scharf.ste...@geemail.com (SMS) says...
> >>> I don't know where you got the idea that new cars are only for the wealthy. In reality they are solidly for the
> >>> middle class.
> >> If you can pay cash for a new car, you meet *my* definition of wealthy.
> > Anyone who buys a new car meets *my* definition of stupid.
>
> More fool you. Some of us can trivially afford it and prefer
> to spend half a day or so getting the best price instead
> of much longer finding a good value used car instead.
It's not that I can't afford a new car, it's just that it's not frugal
and new cars have that wretched chemical stench (new car smell) for
months!. Yuck! It's never taken me longer than one day to find and buy
a used car for less than $5,000. I drop it at the mechanic's, pick it
up a few days later for another $500-$800, then drive it for 10+ years
with normal maintenance. Oh, and I can usually get at least $1,000 for
the old one, just by putting a sign on it for a few days in the
driveway. Who's the "fool" now? That would be you.
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:22 pm
From: SMS
Vic Smith wrote:
> Actually, for those cars, both used and new buyers are often pretty
> stupid, except for those who have negotiating skills.
> The used buyers who pay more than what they would pay for a new car,
> and the new car buyers paying considerably more than you paid.
> One side supports the other.
I didn't negotiate at all when I bought our last Camry at about $1500
under invoice, $3000 under MSRP. The dealer had an "All In Stock At This
Price" sale for $16,988. That's what I paid. The dealer tried to get out
of selling it at this price, but that's another story, and I did get it
for the ad price eventually.
There are the people that do no pre-purchase research, walk onto the
lot, and pay way too much for a new car, and these people subsidize
those that bother to open a newspaper. These are often the same people
that shop by "monthly payment" rather than by the actual price.
There are people that believe that buying a slightly used car saves them
the instant depreciation of a new car. They simply are clueless if they
think that they are actually saving anything at all on some of the best
selling, and most reliable cars on the market. However on the vehicles
that have very high depreciation it is true that buying a slightly used
model is a good way to save money.
There are people that buy older used cars, and while they do spend less
initially, their yearly cost when they divide the purchase price by the
remaining years of service, is probably no less than if they bought a
new car (without overpaying) and divided the purchase price by the total
years of service.
As to those that are bad at negotiations, at least around here you can
use the Bay Area Consumer Checkbook buying service, which isn't free,
but nets you a very good deal that's well under the bogus Costco/AAA/etc
buying program "fleet" prices.
OTOH, even the buyer that pays invoice or slightly over on a vehicle
like that isn't really stupid. They're overpaying slightly, but they're
buying a vehicle that (if they so desire) that they can use for 10-15
years with very little if any non-wear related repairs.
Buying a used car is often what's stupid. I.e., if I had bought a 4 year
old Camry at the time I bought the new one it would have cost about
$14,000 from a private party. It would be about time for new tires
($300 or so), and new front brakes ($200 or so), and it would have had
no warranty, and all things being equal it would last 4 years less than
the new one. The extra $3000 for a new car was money very well spent
when you look at the big picture.
If you're buying a basic transportation used car then buy a ten year old
car for $3000. If you're buying a 1-4 year old car thinking you're
saving money, you're usually naive, unless it's a vehicle that has very
rapid depreciation, which is often a vehicle you don't want for other
reasons anyway.
Above all, stay away from "no-haggle" dealers where essentially everyone
overpays, but they all feel good that no one paid less than they did.
Watch out for unscrupulous dealers that come up with all sorts of bogus
fees. I've seen "closing fees," "salesman retirement fund fees," among
the more creative ways to rip people off. And don't get me started on
the WAOs (worthless add-ons) like pin-striping, undercoating, fabric
guard, paint guard, glass etching, window tinting, gold packages,
after-market alarms, third-party extended warranties, digital ashtrays, etc.
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:20 pm
From: clams_casino
tmclone@searchmachine.com wrote:
>On May 8, 3:38 pm, "2345" <2...@sam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>h wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>>Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>scharf.ste...@geemail.com (SMS) says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know where you got the idea that new cars are only for the wealthy. In reality they are solidly for the
>>>>>middle class.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If you can pay cash for a new car, you meet *my* definition of wealthy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Anyone who buys a new car meets *my* definition of stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>More fool you. Some of us can trivially afford it and prefer
>>to spend half a day or so getting the best price instead
>>of much longer finding a good value used car instead.
>>
>>
>
>It's not that I can't afford a new car, it's just that it's not frugal
>and new cars have that wretched chemical stench (new car smell) for
>months!. Yuck! It's never taken me longer than one day to find and buy
>a used car for less than $5,000. I drop it at the mechanic's, pick it
>up a few days later for another $500-$800, then drive it for 10+ years
>with normal maintenance. Oh, and I can usually get at least $1,000 for
>the old one, just by putting a sign on it for a few days in the
>driveway. Who's the "fool" now? That would be you.
>
>
>
as if you have any level of credibility
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:30 pm
From: William Souden
Rod Speed wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> clams_casino wrote
>>> George wrote
>
>>>> And the best part is that roads already have one of the fairest tax
>>>> systems going with the liquid fuels taxes. I am in PA and our
>>>> governor has been trying for years to turn I-80 over to the mega
>>>> bureaucratic turnpike commission that is overflowing with high paid
>>>> appointed jobs and make it a toll road. All of this so he can look
>>>> good (and payback his friends since he makes the turnpike
>>>> appointments) because the road maintenance would be removed from
>>>> the states' budget and he can claim he is a genius because he
>>>> "lowered spending". Then everyone will have to pay more to cover
>>>> the cost of the building and operation of toll collection systems.
>
>>> Actually, tolls are the best way to pay for the roads. Those who
>>> use them pay. Those who don't aren't subsidizing those who do.
>
>> I think you missed the point. Liquid fuels taxes are the best way for exactly the reason you stated. You need to buy
>> fuel so there is a simple way to collect the tax. The more you use the roads the more fuel you need to buy.
>
> The trouble with that approach, even tho its by far the most
> efficient way to raise the revenue, is that there is no way to force
> the politicians to spend that money raised that way on the roads.
>
>> Tolls introduce an another entire bureaucracy just to collect an additional tax.
>
> Yes, but its easier to force the money raised be spent on that road,
> and you can change driving behaviour with the toll charges too.
>
>> In my state the highly bureaucratic turnpike commission gets the liquid fuels based on vehicle miles driven and class
>> plus the tolls to pay for their bureaucracy.
>
> Makes more sense to not allow them to have the bureaucracy.
>
>
In New Jersey the two major toll roads are run by an entity that is
required to be self sufficient. The only revenue generated id from tolls
and concession. They even pay for the state police on the roads.
They regularly have a surplus which is turned over to the state for
use on non-toll roads.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:56 pm
From:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:w0LUj.115359$Ft5.61729@newsfe15.lga...
> tmclone@searchmachine.com wrote:
>
>>On May 8, 3:38 pm, "2345" <2...@sam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>h wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>scharf.ste...@geemail.com (SMS) says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know where you got the idea that new cars are only for the
>>>>>>wealthy. In reality they are solidly for the
>>>>>>middle class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>If you can pay cash for a new car, you meet *my* definition of wealthy.
>>>>>
>>>>Anyone who buys a new car meets *my* definition of stupid.
>>>>
>>>More fool you. Some of us can trivially afford it and prefer
>>>to spend half a day or so getting the best price instead
>>>of much longer finding a good value used car instead.
>>>
>>
>>It's not that I can't afford a new car, it's just that it's not frugal
>>and new cars have that wretched chemical stench (new car smell) for
>>months!. Yuck! It's never taken me longer than one day to find and buy
>>a used car for less than $5,000. I drop it at the mechanic's, pick it
>>up a few days later for another $500-$800, then drive it for 10+ years
>>with normal maintenance. Oh, and I can usually get at least $1,000 for
>>the old one, just by putting a sign on it for a few days in the
>>driveway. Who's the "fool" now? That would be you.
>>
>>
> as if you have any level of credibility
?huh? You're more "credible" than I am because...? Plonk.
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 4:22 pm
From: krw
In article <Xns9A96DB5B53447544444@130.133.1.18>, Terri@micron.net
says...
> krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
> news:MPG.228ae60321d760ca989be5@news.individual.net:
>
> > In article <Xns9A96CE104C66B7544444@130.133.1.18>, Terri@micron.net
> > says...
> >> Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.228aaaf31231d327989e6a@news.peaksky.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Personally, I just use whatever service station is most convenient,
> >> > and save the 60 cents by driving slower or driving less.
> >> >
> >> Driving slower hasn't seemed to occur to a whole lot of the same
> >> idiots who complain the most about the price of gas.
> >
> > It still hasn't seemed to occur to a whole lot of idiots that time
> > is money.
> I'd certainly agree with that. All they need to do is get up earlier
> to allow themselves the extra time to save some gas by not rushing.
> It's just simple common sense and you'd think people would get that,
> wouldn't you?
No. Getting up earlier doesn't change the equation at all. Time is
still money and there is only so much of it in one's life.
Commuting is simply wasted life.
> >
> >> I'm thinking of getting a bumper sticker that says something such as:
> >>
> >> I'm paying for the gas
> >> So get off my ass!
> >
> > I'm sure you'll find that as useful as all the other bumper stickers
> > holding the rust together.
> On your car? Mine doesn't have either.
You're the one talking about putting silly bumper stickers on your
rust bucket.
> >> There's a route I take to work that is 65 mph for @14 miles with only
> >> one passing lane mid-point. (CJ knows this road well.) Everyone gets on
> >> your ass so they can zoom up to 75-80mph and pass each other and
> >> jockey for a new place in the car herd.
> >> Six minutes later, we're all sitting at the same stop light anyway.
> >
> > Physics doesn't work that way.
> Perhaps. But since I'm speaking of automotive driving I think you might
> want the sci.physics group. Give my regards to Archimedes Plutonium.
Physics is real, no matter how much *you* deny its existence.
> >> They just sucked a bunch of extra gas up to get at the same stoplight
> >> and be 7th in line instead of 8th.
> >> What's the point?
> >
> > Everyone *always* gets stopped at the light, for exactly the same
> > time?
> >
> When I get to the stoplight it's always red. And eventually? It turns
> green! Is that cool or what? I have no idea of the actual time involved
> stopped at the stop light, which probably why I didn't mention it and
> instead mentioned only the placement of the cars in the line.
ALWAYS? You're either incredibly stupid, or a liar. From your
posts here, both are a real possibility.
> At the light.
> The cars at the red light. Sometimes they are trucks in there too.
Oh, sometimes they don't get stopped for the light? Wonder how that
works.
> The cars and trucks at the red light waiting for the light to turn green.
> The cars and trucks at the red light, waiting for the light to turn green
> so they can make a left at the T-junction of a very busy highway full of
> east-west commuter traffic. (Also full of cars and trucks.)
Nonsense.
> You appear to be having some trouble comprehending written words as well
> possibly the definitions of scorn and/or derision and/or humor, so I hope
> that helps clear things up a bit for you!
Nope, just a bit of a problem swallowing your lies.
> Ciao!
Don't let the door...
--
Keith
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 4:22 pm
From: krw
In article <ivhUj.113703$Ft5.67042@newsfe15.lga>,
PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com says...
> krw wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.228aafe2c22a6557989e6c@news.peaksky.com>,
> >firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com says...
> >
> >
> >>In article <68cf9oF2s2e45U1@mid.individual.net>, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
> >>(Rod Speed) says...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Nope, because they promise to pay interest on bonds
> >>>and continue to do so and repay the capital too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Not in this world they don't bunkie. The feds haven't made an interest
> >>payment in 60 years. They just borrow more money to keep the pyramid
> >>scheme running.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Haven't made an interest payment? Surely you don't mean that.
> >
> >
> >
> In theory, they do make interest payments, but in practice, it's all
> with borrowed money.
You lied then.
> It's much like using your credit card to pay the previous month's
> payment. You are paying the interest & minimum payment, but simply
> borrowing to make the payment.
If you had said they never paid the "principal" I would have less of
an argument, but saying the government has never "made an
*interest* payment" is a flat out lie, which you insist on
compounding.
Don't bother moving the goal posts, just admit that your hyperbole
crossed into the lie-zone.
--
Keith
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 4:22 pm
From: krw
In article <slrng24cll.drq.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
says...
> In <MPG.228b523d9be29fe1989e6f@news.peaksky.com>, Larry Caldwell wrote:
> >In article <slrng22729.erk.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com (Don
> >Klipstein) says...
> >
> >> USA's national debt decreased during most of Clinton'as second term!
> >
> >No, it didn't. Not even close. They don't mention the money they were
> >stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund as part of the deficit.
>
> They did not steal it - they borrowed it. SS buys Treasury bonds.
Oh crap, Don! Even you don't believe that lie.
> Then there is that fiscal year in Clinton's second term when even
> excluding SS, the government ran a surplus. I think it was FY 2000.
So you admit to the lie above?
> I find it regrettable that so many were trying for ways to spend it,
> when we needed to pay down more the national debt. It was gridlocking of
> spending bills that helped us get that surplus then.
No, it was the Don.Bomb windfall that *reduced* the deficit.
--
Keith
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Camcorder Hard Drive - Find Tips - SALES on Camcorders all Brand Names
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/821287311dc14324?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 11:55 am
From: mja
Bob wrote:
>IMAGINE YOU SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!
><syipv5cnduziklmcnh3e@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
Next time you want to reply to an obvious spam / scam - please delete
all the links.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Grocery Game is a wiener
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7d045befeb1a340a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 12:05 pm
From: clams_casino
Ablang wrote:
>
>I signed up for a $1 trial membership to the Grocery Game
>
Cool. You signed up at your own website.
Did you mail the coupons to yourself as well?
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 2:11 pm
From: Seerialmom
On May 7, 11:10 pm, Ablang <ron...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Grocery Game is a winner, reporter says
> By Jim Downing - jdowning at sacbee.com
>
> Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, May 4, 2008
> Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D2
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/909116.html
>
> Americans redeemed only 0.7 percent of the $400 billion in grocery
> coupons printed last year, and until recently I was doing my part to
> keep that fraction small. But a shopping trip around Sacramento has
> made me a clipper.
>
> I signed up for a $1 trial membership to the Grocery Game, a Web site
> -www.grocerygame.com- that bills itself as a guide to beating
> warehouse-discounter prices by taking advantage of sales and coupons
> in supermarkets and drugstores.
>
> Two aspects of the Grocery Game service struck me as especially
> useful: It matches manufacturers' coupons from the Sunday paper with
> in-store sales (some of which aren't advertised). And it does the math
> to tell me how much I'm saving off the regular price after adding up
> all the discounts.
>
> With the Grocery Game list in hand, I browsed through the sales at
> Safeway, Rite Aid and Walgreens in a few minutes and marked a dozen
> items I thought we needed at home.
>
> The big score: a Doctor's Night Guard dental protector free with an
> online discount. They usually cost $20 to $25. The list pointed out a
> Rite Aid offer I wouldn't have known about unless I'd happened upon it
> while digging through the company Web site or the in-store promotional
> booklet.
>
> At Safeway, though, to take advantage of a deal for 67 percent off
> salsa, I needed coupons from the April 13 Sunday paper, long since
> recycled. Same problem with chips. Still, the list made it easier to
> home in on the items that were on deep discount: a box of brownie mix
> for a dollar, a half-off bottle of Excedrin Migraine ($3.99), organic
> strawberries (2 pounds for $4.79).
>
> At Walgreens, I couldn't resist the three cans of Van Camp's pork and
> beans for 39 cents each (72 percent off with a Sunday coupon) even
> though it meant asking a clerk to refill the sold-out shelf display.
>
> When I got home, though, my wife pointed out that I haven't eaten pork
> and beans in years - and she probably never will. Those cans may get
> donated. I also got store-brand lightbulbs that were nominally free,
> but to get the rebate I had to fill out a form and mail it with a 41-
> cent stamp.
>
> At the office, I tallied $13.96 (including the stamp) for my purchases
> instead of the full price of $52.86 - a 74 percent savings. Even
> without the mouth-guard windfall, I still saved better than 55
> percent.
>
> I doubt I'll ever want to subsist entirely on big-discount groceries,
> but for some food - and definitely for toiletries - I'm sold.
You know what? If someone has the time to commit to this and loves the
thrill of the hunt, it's great. But I don't think you really need to
join a club to figure out the cycles on sales. I read the related
article that was in the Bee where some lady joined that club while she
was in San Diego and was using it now up here in Sacramento; she
admits it's limited because it only covers a few stores we have.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 2:12 pm
From: Seerialmom
On May 8, 12:05 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Ablang wrote:
>
> >I signed up for a $1 trial membership to the Grocery Game
>
> Cool. You signed up at your own website.
>
> Did you mail the coupons to yourself as well?
That wasn't a troll; there was the article in the Bee...and I believe
the OP was just sharing.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:01 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote
> clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Ablang wrote
>>> I signed up for a $1 trial membership to the Grocery Game
>> Cool. You signed up at your own website.
>> Did you mail the coupons to yourself as well?
> That wasn't a troll; there was the article in the Bee...
> and I believe the OP was just sharing.
And it wasnt even his website.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:04 pm
From: clams_casino
Seerialmom wrote:
>On May 8, 12:05 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ablang wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I signed up for a $1 trial membership to the Grocery Game
>>>
>>>
>>Cool. You signed up at your own website.
>>
>>Did you mail the coupons to yourself as well?
>>
>>
>
>That wasn't a troll; there was the article in the Bee...and I believe
>the OP was just sharing.
>
>
posted through gmail via google groups = 99.998786565% chance of spam
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:07 pm
From: Seerialmom
On May 8, 3:04 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Seerialmom wrote:
> >On May 8, 12:05 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> >>Ablang wrote:
>
> >>>I signed up for a $1 trial membership to the Grocery Game
>
> >>Cool. You signed up at your own website.
>
> >>Did you mail the coupons to yourself as well?
>
> >That wasn't a troll; there was the article in the Bee...and I believe
> >the OP was just sharing.
>
> posted through gmail via google groups = 99.998786565% chance of spam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
to be fair I did check the OP's other posts and didn't see cross
postings of the same thing. I still think he was just trying to
"share" :) You wouldn't be profiling, now would you? ;-p
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:19 pm
From: clams_casino
Seerialmom wrote:
>On May 8, 3:04 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Seerialmom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On May 8, 12:05 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ablang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I signed up for a $1 trial membership to the Grocery Game
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Cool. You signed up at your own website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you mail the coupons to yourself as well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That wasn't a troll; there was the article in the Bee...and I believe
>>>the OP was just sharing.
>>>
>>>
>>posted through gmail via google groups = 99.998786565% chance of spam- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>
>to be fair I did check the OP's other posts and didn't see cross
>postings of the same thing. I still think he was just trying to
>"share" :) You wouldn't be profiling, now would you? ;-p
>
>
Could be the 0.0012135% chance of a legit posting, but it would be a
very rare likeliness.
If so, odds are it will be another year before there is another legit
posting via gmail / google groups.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap Armani Versace Burberry Sunglasses, Discount Crocs Chanel LV
Sandals
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3d8b97e5b3d182f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 1:06 pm
From: "www.globwholesale.com" <65563082@qq.com>
------ W+W+W . GLOBWHOLESALE . C+O+M ------
Discount Coach Sandals, Dior Sandals, Prada Sandals, Chanel Sandals,
Versace Sandals, Crocs Sandals, LV Sandals, ( G U C C I ) Sandals,
Women's Sandals Men's Slippers From
China
Brand Sunglasses Wholesale:
Discount, Prada Sunglasses
Discount, D&G Sunglasses
Discount, Fendi Sunglasses
Discount, Burberry Sunglasses
Discount, Chanel Sunglasses
Discount, LV Sunglasses
Discount, Dior Sunglasses
Discount, (G U C C I ) Sunglasses
Discount, Armani Sunglasses
Discount, Versace Sunglasses
Discount, A&F Sunglasses
Discount, LV Sunglasses
Wholesale, Prada Sunglasses
Wholesale, D&G Sunglasses
Wholesale, Fendi Sunglasses
Wholesale, Burberry Sunglasses
Wholesale, Chanel Sunglasses
Wholesale, LV Sunglasses
Wholesale, Dior Sunglasses
Wholesale, ( G U C C I ) Sunglasses
Wholesale, Armani Sunglasses
Wholesale, Versace Sunglasses
Wholesale, A&F Sunglasses
Wholesale, LV Sunglasses
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Food shortage ethanol follies, I've planted a food garden.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c2b74d91aeaefb6f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 1:43 pm
From: frank87
["Followup-To(Opvolgend bericht naar):" header ingesteld op sci.agriculture.]
On 2008-04-25, aspasia <aspasia> expressed:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:43:34 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
> Klipstein) wrote:
>
>> The low carb craze has increased grain demands by increasing demand for
>>livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers from the
>>decline of the low carb craze.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
> Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
> agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
> contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. They did not care what
> ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
> now starving. Effects even felt in our neighbor to the South, where
> the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a
> standard food, like wheat bread in the States.
The farmers needed a higher price (just like the Mexican farmers). They
should have raised the price this way, before they bankrupted the
Mexican farmers.
Greetings,
Frank
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Clothes iron face cleaning?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9f865634935d2c6e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 1:56 pm
From: Pat in NJ
Walter Cohen wrote:
> I have an iron whose face is all gunked up. Not sure how this happened
> but I am wondering if it can somehow be cleaned rather than me having to
> go out and purchase a new iron. When the iron is heated/hot it drags on
> the clothing item and sometimes transfers some of the gunk onto the
> clothing.
>
> Can I just use steel wool and/or a brillo pad on the face or will this
> scratch/ruin the iron face?
>
> Thanks,
> Walter
I learned this from a quilting show.
Find a cardboard box that is large enough to move the iron around in
it freely. Cut a brown paper bag to cover the bottom of the box.
Pour table salt into the box and rub your heated iron over the salt. It
will clean off all the gunk. Use an old t shirt to brush the salt off
the bottom of the iron back into the box. Then move the iron over a
piece of waxed paper. This will help the iron glide more easily. The
box with the salt can be reused many times.
Pat in NJ
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I Don't Even Buy Organic And Am Paying $1.10 For An Apple!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b9e63977d717a2cc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:02 pm
From: Seerialmom
On May 7, 8:22 pm, "Nicik Name" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:_L9Uj.160$rc.50@newsfe06.lga...
>
>
>
> > SMS wrote:
>
> >> mavigozler wrote:
>
> >>> I was in the grocery store (Safeway in Davis, CA) and I bought FIVE
> >>> granny smith apples for $5.49. That works out to about $1.10 per apple.
>
> > Only the truly desperate or profligate would pay a buck for an apple.
>
> >>> Has the dollar gone down the toilet THAT MUCH???
>
> >> The problem is that you're shopping at Safeway. Had you gone to Costco,
> >> Smart & Final, an Asian market, or a Mexican market, you would have paid
> >> much, much less. Safeway is often more expensive than even Whole Foods.
>
> > I almost never buy produce at Costco -- you have to buy too much, and the
> > price isn't all that much better than what you get at the supers AND you
> > still have to wait for it to ripen.
>
> > S&F is a little better, but the ethnic markets are the way to go.
>
> >> Last week Whole Foods had non-organic navel oranges at $1.33 per pound.
> >> The Chinese market near me had them at 33¢ per pound.
>
> > Same for the Italian and middle-eastern stores here.
>
> >> You can't find groceries much more expensive than Safeway or Lucky.
>
> > Gelson's, Whole Foods...
>
> Trader Joes.....?
> Ouch.......walked out.
> Went over to AP
>
I've only gone to Trader Joe's a few times, one time out of
curiosity...they had a dozen eggs on sale for .99¢ so I bought them.
Went again when I ran out of eggs, still .99¢...next time...up to $2+
so I went to 99¢ Only, instead :)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 8 2008 3:04 pm
From: Seerialmom
On May 7, 12:42 am, lionel <lio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 13:11:48 GMT, mavigozler <mavigoz...@turkiye.gov>
> wrote:
>
> >lenona...@yahoo.com wrote in misc.consumers.frugal-living:
>
> >>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/RaiseKids/HowToFi
> >> ght5FoodBudgetKillers.aspx?GT1=33009
>
> >> It's 3 pages long and includes a link: "How to shop organic on a
> >> budget"
>
> >I was in the grocery store (Safeway in Davis, CA) and I bought FIVE granny
> >smith apples for $5.49. That works out to about $1.10 per apple.
>
> >Has the dollar gone down the toilet THAT MUCH???
>
> Yeah, food prices are going up and up due mostly to fuel increases
> but you are shopping at Safeway, a unionized chain of grocery stores
> (I am not knocking union jobs at all, but its just a fact that they
> cost more, if you can afford it. ) and the simple fact is that you
> would be better off shopping at Food-4-Less or a Winco
> supermarket, then a Safeway or Raleys' grocery supermarket.
Raley's is good if you can catch their loss leaders, like the Angus
Tri-Tip they had last week for $2.97 a pound? I would have stocked
up...except I stocked up last time and still have plenty :) I agree
full retail is horrible at any major grocery store.
==============================================================================
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