http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* To juice or not. - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
* Limbaugh omits a detail - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6fb865f8cedae1e6?hl=en
* cheap bcbg,prada,chanel,lv,juicy,hermes,jimmy choo,chloe,miumiu handbags,
purse - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6c7ec07e5c7052c8?hl=en
* frugal used battery - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1b65b3938e1db748?hl=en
* How to spend less electricity? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a8e6e539cfb63a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: To juice or not.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:34 pm
From: Marsha
clams_casino wrote:
> Marsha wrote:
>> clams_casino wrote:
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>>> revised government figures indicated."
>>>
>>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>>> government report today. "
>>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>>
>>
>> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
>> matter who's in the oval office.
>
>
> With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
> we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
> inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
I don't think so.
>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs
>
> That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
> (which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
> debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>
So how do you feel about Nancy Pelosi jumping on the tax rebate bandwagon?
>
>> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
>> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
>> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
>> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
>> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
>> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
>> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
>> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
>> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
>> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
> Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
> and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
> poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
> welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
> think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.
There should be more control and accountability on corporate welfare,
just as there should be more control on welfare for the poor.
>
>
> So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
> do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?
I don't think a president has "nothing" to do with the economy, but some
things can be delayed or swayed to turn in the right direction, given
enough time and given a House and Congress who are on board. BTW,
Congress' approval rating is lower than the President's.
>
> If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
> Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
> the next election.
A Republican majority can always "Bork" any nominee they don't like,
just like the Dems have done and continue to do. There are so many
nominees for judges still out there that the Dems are holding up, it's
not funny. Games, always games - by both sides.
Marsha/Ohio
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 6:02 pm
From: clams_casino
Marsha wrote:
> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can find
> a job is not the way to go.
>
You are obviously under the misnomer that the wealthy (on the average)
pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average). (A
misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews,
etc).
While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most
of the wealth. The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US. On the other
hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage
of their income.
After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes
for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored, studies have shown that
most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes where
the wealthy are actually on the lower end. (Ever hear Warren Buffet
comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in
taxes than he?)
Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
> Marsha wrote
>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
>> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can
>> find a job is not the way to go.
> You are obviously under the misnomer
You need a dictionary.
> that the wealthy (on the average) pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average).
They do.
> (A misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews, etc).
Nope, a fact, actually.
> While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most of the wealth.
So they pay more tax, stupid.
> The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
So they pay more tax, stupid.
> but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> On the other hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage of their income.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored,
> studies have shown that most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes
LIke hell they do.
> where the wealthy are actually on the lower end.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> (Ever hear Warren Buffet comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he?)
Irrelevant to the FACT that she pays less tax, stupid.
And the poor that are on benefits or social security etc actually
pay only a small part of their total handout in taxes too.
> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with respect to being a flat tax
Like hell it is.
> - most all pay a similar amount of total taxes as a percentage of their total income.
Another pig ignorant lie,
> The key here is TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
> GW pushed the percentage in favor of the top.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more taxes, stupid.
> It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:15 pm
From: William Souden
Rod Speed wrote:
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Marsha wrote
>
>>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>>> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
>>> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can
>>> find a job is not the way to go.
>
>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>
> You need a dictionary.
>
>> that the wealthy (on the average) pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average).
>
> They do.
>
>> (A misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews, etc).
>
> Nope, a fact, actually.
>
>> While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most of the wealth.
>
> So they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
>
> So they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> On the other hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage of their income.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored,
>> studies have shown that most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes
>
> LIke hell they do.
>
>> where the wealthy are actually on the lower end.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> (Ever hear Warren Buffet comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he?)
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that she pays less tax, stupid.
>
> And the poor that are on benefits or social security etc actually
> pay only a small part of their total handout in taxes too.
>
>> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with respect to being a flat tax
>
> Like hell it is.
>
>> - most all pay a similar amount of total taxes as a percentage of their total income.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie,
>
>> The key here is TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> GW pushed the percentage in favor of the top.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more taxes, stupid.
>
>> It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>
What would a welfare leech know about taxes?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Limbaugh omits a detail
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6fb865f8cedae1e6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:55 pm
From: Sue Bilkens
A dirty republican trick I think.. but don't get me wrong the dems are dirty
too.
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:40:15 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "D&SW"
<d&sw@verizon.net> wrote:
>It was not the point of the audio to show Obama as discourteous, so Obama's
>courtesy to the hecklers was irrelevant. The fact that he was being heckled
>by African Americans was the point. Why are you posting this here?
>
>"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>news:jAGkk.16966$mh5.644@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Plays a tape of Obama being heckled. Forgets a minor detail.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry4313429.shtml
>>
>>
>> Obama asked the protesters, whom a local reporter said were members of the
>> state's black panthers legacy group, to "be courteous" and "respect." The
>> Illinois senator said the men would have their chance to speak after his
>> opening remarks.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 6:55 pm
From: "catalpa"
"Sue Bilkens" <sueb@incus.com> wrote in message
news:74c7941r6h5s03ib8a6ifopdiukjrvo0gh@4ax.com...
>
> A dirty republican trick I think.. but don't get me wrong the dems are
> dirty
> too.
>
Far left Black Panthers are a "dirty republican trick" ???
If you bothered to read the aticle at the posted link, you would have read:
"During a question and answer session, Obama called on one of the hecklers.
The man mentioned a slew of controversial issues, such as the government's
response to Hurricane Katrina and the subprime mortgage crisis and asked,
"In the face of all these attacks that are clearly being made on the African
community, why is it that you have not had the ability to not one time speak
to the interests and even speak on the behalf of the oppressed and exploited
African community or Black community in this country?" "
Oh yeah, that is a real Republican point of view.
>
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:40:15 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "D&SW"
> <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>It was not the point of the audio to show Obama as discourteous, so
>>Obama's
>>courtesy to the hecklers was irrelevant. The fact that he was being
>>heckled
>>by African Americans was the point. Why are you posting this here?
>>
>>"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:jAGkk.16966$mh5.644@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Plays a tape of Obama being heckled. Forgets a minor detail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry4313429.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama asked the protesters, whom a local reporter said were members of
>>> the
>>> state's black panthers legacy group, to "be courteous" and "respect."
>>> The
>>> Illinois senator said the men would have their chance to speak after his
>>> opening remarks.
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: cheap bcbg,prada,chanel,lv,juicy,hermes,jimmy choo,chloe,miumiu
handbags,purse
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6c7ec07e5c7052c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 8:37 pm
From: "www.globwholesale.com.cn"
Discount Kooba Handbags, Prada Handbags, Chanel Handbags, LV Handbags,
(G U C C I)Handbags, D&G Handbags, Chloe Handbags, Hermes Handbags,
Guess Handbags, Jimmy Choo Handbags, Bcbg Handbags.
Supply Dior Wallet, Fendi Wallet, Coach Purse, Juicy Purse, Miumiu
Purse
Discount Pro Bowl NFL jersey, NBA Jersey, NHL jersey, MLB jersey
discount price. Suppliers NFL sports jersey, NFL basketball jersey,
NFL football jersey, Reebok NFL jersey, 2008 New NFL jersey
Prada LV Handbags, Chanel Miumiu Purse, Fendi Dior Wallet wholesale
Discount Coach Sandals, Dior Sandals, Prada Sandals, Chanel Sandals,
Versace Sandals, Crocs Sandals, Women's Sandals Men's Slippers From
China
For more products pls visit:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/
browse_thread/thread/a0af29360f55b8af/f143733e958a8012?
hl=en&lnk=st&q=red+monkey+jeans#f143733e958a8012
==============================================================================
TOPIC: frugal used battery
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1b65b3938e1db748?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 9:18 pm
From: Jeff
My car battery died a couple weeks back and I bought a new battery.
This morning I found out that I no longer had a car battery.
I've acquired a used battery that looks like it's been overfilled and
is not holding a charge for long. Aren't there some tricks to
rejuvinating used car batteries?
Jeff
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 9:54 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> My car battery died a couple weeks back and I bought a new battery. This morning I found out that I no longer had a
> car battery.
> I've acquired a used battery that looks like it's been overfilled
> and is not holding a charge for long. Aren't there some tricks to
> rejuvinating used car batteries?
None that are worth bothering with.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to spend less electricity?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a8e6e539cfb63a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 11:59 pm
From: Dave Garland
It was a dark and stormy night when Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I tend to dry my clothes in the dryer, much more effective than the
>washer ever will be.
Yup. But far less efficient than line-drying them.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 12:01 am
From: Dave Garland
It was a dark and stormy night when "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
<derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>i've read that your clothes remain germy until they're put in the dryer or
>dried in sunlight.
Unless you're washing diapers, this isn't likely to be an issue.
Do you live somewhere where there's no sunlight?
Dave
==============================================================================
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