http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Buying clothes off eBay? - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/38862886a3ad24cf?hl=en
* To juice or not. - 16 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
* Fowl Math - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3f704369916fd0d6?hl=en
* does anybody here know anything abou freecycle - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/af17f8e5c05bfdd7?hl=en
* Checking Accounts - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/468370d2e27158de?hl=en
* The leeches are reaching for more - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c1f04e2aa1094da5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Buying clothes off eBay?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/38862886a3ad24cf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 3:18 pm
From: clams_casino
elise d faber wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:50:09 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>i have had good luck in that what i have gotten as been almost always
>>>'as described', and i have paid little enough that i could cherefully
>>>pass on what didn't fit/wasn't right.
>>>
>>>
>>Thanks for the opinion!
>>
>>Why the heck they charge so much for shipping on
>>everything tho?
>>
>>
>
>clothes are heavy. but if the shipping charge looks too high, don't
>use that seller. someone who will try to cheat you on shipping will
>try to cheat you on merchandise also. a lot of people do add a
>handling charge. if it's just a couple of dollars, i don't mind, but
>if it's more, again i don't buy from them.
>
>it also can be 'fee avoidance'. they don't have t give ebay a
>percentage of the shipping, so if they add an extra $10, they save
>some money. these people aren't to be trusted either. unless you are
>buying something very rare, just avoid the questionable sellers.
>there are plenty of others.
>
>
>elise
>
>
>
>
>
Bottom line is to add the price + S/H. If it's fair - go ahead -
provided the S/H is reasonable.
If it's too much, artificially low or the total is not clear - walk.
About $2 over postage is generally a fair S/H. Much more or
significantly less is a sign the seller is playing games and should not
be trusted. As the previous posted mentioned, a seller playing games
with S/H (artificially high or low) will likely be playing games with
the description as well.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 3:45 pm
From: me@privacy.net
ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber) wrote:
>clothes are heavy. but if the shipping charge looks too high, don't
>use that seller. someone who will try to cheat you on shipping will
>try to cheat you on merchandise also. a lot of people do add a
>handling charge. if it's just a couple of dollars, i don't mind, but
>if it's more, again i don't buy from them.
>
>it also can be 'fee avoidance'. they don't have t give ebay a
>percentage of the shipping, so if they add an extra $10, they save
>some money. these people aren't to be trusted either. unless you are
>buying something very rare, just avoid the questionable sellers.
>there are plenty of others.
Well is this company in link
http://stores.ebay.com/Adrimar-Trading-Company
Look like they charge $12 to ship shoes. I guess shoes
are a bit heavy.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:30 pm
From: "Lou"
<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2vlh945trck8fstg8585lu9fm61vs78r91@4ax.com...
> ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber) wrote:
>
> >clothes are heavy. but if the shipping charge looks too high, don't
> >use that seller. someone who will try to cheat you on shipping will
> >try to cheat you on merchandise also. a lot of people do add a
> >handling charge. if it's just a couple of dollars, i don't mind, but
> >if it's more, again i don't buy from them.
> >
> >it also can be 'fee avoidance'. they don't have t give ebay a
> >percentage of the shipping, so if they add an extra $10, they save
> >some money. these people aren't to be trusted either. unless you are
> >buying something very rare, just avoid the questionable sellers.
> >there are plenty of others.
>
> Well is this company in link
>
> http://stores.ebay.com/Adrimar-Trading-Company
>
> Look like they charge $12 to ship shoes. I guess shoes
> are a bit heavy.
One way to judge shipping costs is to go to a site from an established
retailer and see what they charge for shipping. For instance, I tried the
DSW site and selected a $130 pair of men's dress shoes. Shipping, using
their "standard" shipping mode (whatever that is) is $5.95.
Based on that, I'd say $12 is expensive.
The few times I've shopped on ebay, stuff looked expensive to me, compared
to what's available elsewhere online and locally. With one exception, I've
bought whatever I was looking for elsewhere.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:55 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> elise d faber wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:50:09 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> i have had good luck in that what i have gotten as been almost
>>>> always 'as described', and i have paid little enough that i could
>>>> cherefully pass on what didn't fit/wasn't right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the opinion!
>>>
>>> Why the heck they charge so much for shipping on
>>> everything tho?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> clothes are heavy. but if the shipping charge looks too high, don't
>> use that seller. someone who will try to cheat you on shipping will
>> try to cheat you on merchandise also. a lot of people do add a
>> handling charge. if it's just a couple of dollars, i don't mind, but
>> if it's more, again i don't buy from them.
>>
>> it also can be 'fee avoidance'. they don't have t give ebay a
>> percentage of the shipping, so if they add an extra $10, they save
>> some money. these people aren't to be trusted either. unless you
>> are buying something very rare, just avoid the questionable sellers.
>> there are plenty of others.
>>
>>
>> elise
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Bottom line is to add the price + S/H. If it's fair - go ahead -
> provided the S/H is reasonable.
>
> If it's too much, artificially low or the total is not clear - walk.
>
> About $2 over postage is generally a fair S/H. Much more or
> significantly less is a sign the seller is playing games and should
> not be trusted. As the previous posted mentioned, a seller playing
> games with S/H (artificially high or low) will likely be playing
> games with the description as well.
Mindlessly silly. Plenty just have enough of a clue to minimise the
ebay commission that way and the buyer obviously benefits from that.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:59 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Lou <lpogoda@verizon.net> wrote:
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2vlh945trck8fstg8585lu9fm61vs78r91@4ax.com...
>> ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber) wrote:
>>
>>> clothes are heavy. but if the shipping charge looks too high, don't
>>> use that seller. someone who will try to cheat you on shipping will
>>> try to cheat you on merchandise also. a lot of people do add a
>>> handling charge. if it's just a couple of dollars, i don't mind,
>>> but if it's more, again i don't buy from them.
>>>
>>> it also can be 'fee avoidance'. they don't have t give ebay a
>>> percentage of the shipping, so if they add an extra $10, they save
>>> some money. these people aren't to be trusted either. unless you
>>> are buying something very rare, just avoid the questionable sellers.
>>> there are plenty of others.
>>
>> Well is this company in link
>>
>> http://stores.ebay.com/Adrimar-Trading-Company
>>
>> Look like they charge $12 to ship shoes. I guess shoes
>> are a bit heavy.
>
> One way to judge shipping costs is to go to a site from an established
> retailer and see what they charge for shipping. For instance, I
> tried the DSW site and selected a $130 pair of men's dress shoes.
> Shipping, using their "standard" shipping mode (whatever that is) is
> $5.95.
> Based on that, I'd say $12 is expensive.
What matters is the total price. Thats what you pay.
> The few times I've shopped on ebay, stuff looked expensive to
> me, compared to what's available elsewhere online and locally.
More fool you.
> With one exception, I've bought whatever I was looking for elsewhere.
More fool you.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: To juice or not.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 3:38 pm
From: "cybercat"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fs19rFd2b4hU1@mid.individual.net...
> cybercat <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6frorsFcvj1vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> cybercat <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6fpb0uFclchfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> T <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net> wrote
>>>>>> ohco@hotmail.com wrote
>>>>>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>>>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
>>>>>>> recover.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great
>>>>> depression.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The economy as a whole is screwed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as
>>>>>> 5.7% or so
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.
>>>>>
>>>>>> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
>>>>>> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then of course there are the energy prices.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them
>>>>> fine.
>>>>>> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
>>>>>> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on your
>>>>> lard arse.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Energy costs impact food costs.
>>>>>
>>>>> They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too and
>>>>> survived that fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
>>>>>> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>>>>> claim. And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another
>>>>> one fine
>>>>> too. It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
>>>>>> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is
>>>>>> interesting in itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally
>>>>> guaranteed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you think you ignorant Republican motherfuckers could please
>>>> piss off?
>>>
>>> You wouldnt know what a real Republican motherfucker was if one bit
>>> you on your lard arse, child.
>>>
>>
>> My favorite part is "Pig Ignorant Lie." You so eloquent.
>
> You in spades, child.
>
You mean, IKYABWAI. Dad.
Now then, I realize you're bitter because you're looking at EIGHT years of
Democratic administrations, but if we could take EIGHT years of the First
Chimp, you can take eight years of our guy.
And even if you can't, you have to.
*cackle*
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 3:43 pm
From: William Souden
Rod Speed wrote:
> William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>> T wrote
>>>>> ohco@hotmail.com wrote
>>>>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely
>>>>>>> you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
>>>>>> recover.
>>>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>>>>> The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
>>>>> unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in reality
>>>>> translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that particular
>>>>> statistic only records NEW filings.
>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>
>>>> According to a recent Forbes article, " The misery index - the sum
>>>> of the inflation and unemployment rates - is at a 15-year high,
>>>> with no relief in sight."
>>> Do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.
>>>
>>>> According to CNNMoney, "planned job cuts announced by employers in
>>>> July jumped 26% to 103,312 from 81,755 announced in June. That's up
>>>> 141% from a year ago, when employers announced planned job cuts
>>>> totaling 42,897."
>>> A fart in the bath in total employment.
>>>
>>>> According to the US Dept Labor - July 2008, " Over the past 12
>>>> months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 1.6 million" -
>>> And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
>>>
>>>> July was the seventh straight month of job losses.
>>> And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
>
>> Links to these facts have been repeated over and over
>
> You're lying, as always.
>
>> In the US if you are unemployed during a reporting period but simply scan ads without applying for a job you are not
>> considered to be unemployed during that period.
>
> You're lying, as always.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
From the very link you posted,welfare boy:
Passive methods of jobsearch do not result in jobseekers actually
contacting potential employers, and therefore are not acceptable for
classifying persons as unemployed. These would include such things as
attending a job training program or course or merely reading the want ads.
>
>> The major part of unemployment comes from people registering at
>> state employment offices,something one needs to do when they are
>> getting unemployment benefits. Since most jobs at those offices are
>> the bottom of the barrel many stop registering when benefits run out.
>
> You're lying, as always.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>> For the last few years the weekly number of new jobless claims has regularly exceeded the monthly number of jobs
>> created.
>
> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Thats only happened quite recently.
>
>
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/24/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm
February 24, 2005: 9:05 AM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Weekly jobless claims rose last week, the
government said Thursday in reporting a figure that was higher than
forecasts.
New claims for state unemployment benefits rose to 312,000 in the week
ended Feb. 19 from a revised 303,000 the prior week.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 262,000 new payroll jobs
were created in February 2005. Since May 2003, the economy has created
over 3 million jobs. We have seen steady jobs gains for each of the
last twenty-one months - and more Americans are working than ever before.
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 3:57 pm
From: Blinky the Shark
Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Or instead of referring to you as "cybercat and blake" maybe we could refer
> to your comedy act as "Fred and Ethel 'Rosenberg' ", hmmm...???
"Ethel, you got some 'splaining to do."
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 4:46 pm
From: Marsha
clams_casino wrote:
> nearly 1% of homes are currently in foreclosure - over 6% of mortgages
> are in default.
>
How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't blame
mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous roles, had
a lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people who really
shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out loans and are
paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting screwed, along
with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ is somewhere
between 1 and 50.
Marsha/Ohio
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:37 pm
From: clams_casino
Marsha wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> nearly 1% of homes are currently in foreclosure - over 6% of
>> mortgages are in default.
>>
>
> How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
> Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't
> blame mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous
> roles, had a lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people
> who really shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out
> loans and are paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting
> screwed, along with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ
> is somewhere between 1 and 50.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
A significant portion of the blame should be on government subsidies
which particularly favor the upper middle class in the overbuilding of
huge homes (McMansions). In 2008, the government will be supplying $145
billion in tax breaks (essentially subsidies / welfare) to those who are
able to utilize deduction via long form (article in Newsweek). It's
not just the low income group that's doing the defaulting.
Such generous subsidies greatly encourage overbuilding. Those that
don't fully understand the real costs of home ownership are often times
destined to failure. Overlooking extra costs of energy, maintenance,
etc of such larger homes without an ever increasing market price have
obviously gotten many into deep trouble (along with an increasing rate
of unemployment) .
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:39 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
> How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
> Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't blame
> mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous roles, had a
> lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people who really
> shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out loans and are
> paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting screwed, along
> with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ is somewhere
> between 1 and 50.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
what did the dems do?
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:53 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:Zm6mk.11584$LF2.8386@newsfe09.iad...
> Marsha wrote:
>
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> nearly 1% of homes are currently in foreclosure - over 6% of mortgages
>>> are in default.
>>>
>>
>> How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
>> Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't blame
>> mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous roles, had
>> a lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people who really
>> shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out loans and are
>> paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting screwed, along
>> with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ is somewhere
>> between 1 and 50.
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
> A significant portion of the blame should be on government subsidies which
> particularly favor the upper middle class in the overbuilding of huge
> homes (McMansions). In 2008, the government will be supplying $145
> billion in tax breaks (essentially subsidies / welfare) to those who are
> able to utilize deduction via long form (article in Newsweek). It's not
> just the low income group that's doing the defaulting.
> Such generous subsidies greatly encourage overbuilding. Those that don't
> fully understand the real costs of home ownership are often times destined
> to failure. Overlooking extra costs of energy, maintenance, etc of such
> larger homes without an ever increasing market price have obviously gotten
> many into deep trouble (along with an increasing rate of unemployment) .
i was reading a bit ago that a lot of them are using the "prove you own
the mortgage" thing with their lenders. since a huge majority of the
loans made in the last 7yrs or so were bundled and sold, and the
paperwork wasn't done, the bank collecting the mortgage can't prove
they own it. nor do they know who owns it. so what happens is
the mortgagee stops making payments, and when the bank can't prove
they have the right to foreclose, it's rent-free living. has been
happening with multimillion dollars homes in fl.
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 6:00 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
cybercat <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6frotrFd1b3sU1@mid.individual.net...
>> cybercat <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:o68h94d2id4qo715m0opv7ocag3o85u1fb@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:34:42 -0400, "cybercat"
>>>> <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think you ignorant Republican motherfuckers could please
>>>>> piss off?
>>>> Well I could piss off of any thing you want.
>>>> As to being a motherfucker, yes I am, and what's your mothers name?
>>>>
>>>> As you can see any one can be crude & ignorant, now did that make
>>>> you feel better?
>>>>
>>>> And I will stay here as long as I want.
>>>
>>> It was just a request. I even said "please."
>>
>> Fuck off. No please, thats an order.
> PUSEEEEEEEE!
Go to your room, child.
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 6:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
cybercat <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6fs19rFd2b4hU1@mid.individual.net...
>> cybercat <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6frorsFcvj1vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> cybercat <cyberpurrs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6fpb0uFclchfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> T <nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net> wrote
>>>>>>> ohco@hotmail.com wrote
>>>>>>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly
>>>>>>>>> unlikely you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>>>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
>>>>>>>> recover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, completely realistic. The market recovered even after great
>>>>>> depression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The economy as a whole is screwed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you hadn't noticed the unemployment rate is being reported as
>>>>>>> 5.7% or so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plenty of countrys would kill for that rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which in reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number
>>>>>>> since that particular statistic only records NEW filings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then of course there are the energy prices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've had higher real energy prices in the 70s and survived them
>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>> Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you can't have missed
>>>>>>> that your electric rates probably went up by about 20%
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and gasoline and oil have gone stratospheric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wouldnt know what a real straophere was if one bit you on
>>>>>> your lard arse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Energy costs impact food costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They did in the 70s too and we survived that fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Communities are crumbling because of the mortgage crisis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another lie. And we had the same claim about the S&L fiasco too
>>>>>> and survived that fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And people still believe we're just heading into a recession.
>>>>>>> I have news for you, we're heading into a depression
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>>>>>> claim. And we survived the last one fine, and can survive another
>>>>>> one fine
>>>>>> too. It wouldnt even be as hard to survive as the last one was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but nobody wants to say it because of the panic it would cause.
>>>>>>> We've now seen 8 bank failures in the last two weeks which is
>>>>>>> interesting in itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And those with deposits in them have had their deposits federally
>>>>>> guaranteed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I predict that BofA will be the first big bank to fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It wont be allowed to fail, you watch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think you ignorant Republican motherfuckers could please
>>>>> piss off?
>>>>
>>>> You wouldnt know what a real Republican motherfucker was if one bit
>>>> you on your lard arse, child.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My favorite part is "Pig Ignorant Lie." You so eloquent.
>> You in spades, child.
> You mean, IKYABWAI.
Nope.
> Now then, I realize you're bitter because you're looking at EIGHT years of Democratic administrations,
I couldnt give a flying red fuck who runs that country, child.
> but if we could take EIGHT years of the First Chimp, you can take eight years of our guy.
None of you clowns get any say in my country, child.
> And even if you can't, you have to.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
> *cackle*
Village eejut imitations cut no mustard, child.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 6:05 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> nearly 1% of homes are currently in foreclosure - over 6% of
>> mortgages are in default.
>>
>
> How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
> Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't
> blame mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous
> roles, had a lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people
> who really shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out
> loans and are paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting screwed,
Nope, not when interest rates are essentially set by the fed.
> along with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ is somewhere between 1 and 50.
No one is bailing them out.
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 6:09 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Marsha wrote:
>
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> nearly 1% of homes are currently in foreclosure - over 6% of
>>> mortgages are in default.
>>>
>>
>> How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
>> Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't
>> blame mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous
>> roles, had a lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people
>> who really shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out
>> loans and are paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting
>> screwed, along with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ
>> is somewhere between 1 and 50.
> A significant portion of the blame should be on government subsidies
> which particularly favor the upper middle class in the overbuilding of
> huge homes (McMansions).
That aint the reason for the McMansions. Low interest rates are.
> In 2008, the government will be supplying $145 billion in tax breaks (essentially subsidies / welfare) to those who
> are able to utilize deduction via long form (article in Newsweek).
That aint the reason for the McMansions. Low interest rates are.
> It's not just the low income group that's doing the defaulting.
Correct, stupidity is across the board.
> Such generous subsidies greatly encourage overbuilding.
Nope, the low interest rates did.
> Those that don't fully understand the real costs of home ownership are often times destined to failure.
Thats not the reason for the defaults.
> Overlooking extra costs of energy, maintenance, etc of such larger homes without an ever increasing market price have
> obviously gotten many into deep trouble (along with an increasing rate of unemployment) .
That aint the reason for the defaults either.
The real reason is that they assumed they could flip
the house before the higher interest rate cut in on ARMs.
They just found out that they cant and that they are fucked.
And non recourse loans mean that they can just walk with very little penalty.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 6:13 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>> T wrote
>>>>>> ohco@hotmail.com wrote
>>>>>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely
>>>>>>>> you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
>>>>>>> recover.
>>>>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>>>>>> The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
>>>>>> unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in
>>>>>> reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that
>>>>>> particular statistic only records NEW filings.
>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>>
>>>>> According to a recent Forbes article, " The misery index - the sum
>>>>> of the inflation and unemployment rates - is at a 15-year high,
>>>>> with no relief in sight."
>>>> Do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.
>>>>
>>>>> According to CNNMoney, "planned job cuts announced by employers in
>>>>> July jumped 26% to 103,312 from 81,755 announced in June. That's
>>>>> up 141% from a year ago, when employers announced planned job cuts
>>>>> totaling 42,897."
>>>> A fart in the bath in total employment.
>>>>
>>>>> According to the US Dept Labor - July 2008, " Over the past 12
>>>>> months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 1.6
>>>>> million" -
>>>> And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
>>>>
>>>>> July was the seventh straight month of job losses.
>>>> And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
>>
>>> Links to these facts have been repeated over and over
>>
>> You're lying, as always.
>>
>>> In the US if you are unemployed during a reporting period but
>>> simply scan ads without applying for a job you are not considered
>>> to be unemployed during that period.
>> You're lying, as always.
>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> From the very link you posted
Still true, liar.
> Passive methods of jobsearch do not result in jobseekers actually contacting potential employers, and therefore are
> not acceptable for classifying persons as unemployed.
You're lying, as always.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> These would include such things as attending a job training program or course or merely reading the want ads.
You're lying, as always.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>> The major part of unemployment comes from people registering at
>>> state employment offices,something one needs to do when they are
>>> getting unemployment benefits. Since most jobs at those offices are
>>> the bottom of the barrel many stop registering when benefits run out.
>> You're lying, as always.
>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>>> For the last few years the weekly number of new jobless claims has regularly exceeded the monthly number of jobs
>>> created.
>> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Thats only happened quite recently.
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/24/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm
Doesnt say anything like your lie, liar.
> February 24, 2005: 9:05 AM EST
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Weekly jobless claims rose last week, the
> government said Thursday in reporting a figure that was higher than forecasts.
Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
> New claims for state unemployment benefits rose to 312,000 in the week ended Feb. 19 from a revised 303,000 the prior
> week.
Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
> The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 262,000 new payroll jobs
> were created in February 2005. Since May 2003, the economy has
> created over 3 million jobs. We have seen steady jobs gains for each of the last twenty-one months - and more
> Americans are working than ever before.
Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 6:44 pm
From: Marsha
AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
>>Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't blame
>>mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous roles, had a
>>lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people who really
>>shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out loans and are
>>paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting screwed, along
>>with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ is somewhere
>>between 1 and 50.
>>
>>Marsha/Ohio
>
>
> what did the dems do?
>
>
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2008/04/10/obama-subprime-crisis/
Marsha/Ohio
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 7:23 pm
From: turtlelover
Why hasn't the subject line been changed yet?
Wondering,
T
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 8:08 pm
From: William Souden
Rod Speed wrote:
> William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>>> T wrote
>>>>>>> ohco@hotmail.com wrote
>>>>>>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>>>>>>>>> Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely
>>>>>>>>> you are better off today vs. 10 years ago.
>>>>>>>> I'm hardly in the top 1% and yes I am better off.
>>>>>>>> My stocks made money up until this year. And the market will
>>>>>>>> recover.
>>>>>>> Wow, you're pretty optimistic.
>>>>>>> The economy as a whole is screwed. If you hadn't noticed the
>>>>>>> unemployment rate is being reported as 5.7% or so which in
>>>>>>> reality translates to 2 to 3 times that number since that
>>>>>>> particular statistic only records NEW filings.
>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to a recent Forbes article, " The misery index - the sum
>>>>>> of the inflation and unemployment rates - is at a 15-year high,
>>>>>> with no relief in sight."
>>>>> Do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to CNNMoney, "planned job cuts announced by employers in
>>>>>> July jumped 26% to 103,312 from 81,755 announced in June. That's
>>>>>> up 141% from a year ago, when employers announced planned job cuts
>>>>>> totaling 42,897."
>>>>> A fart in the bath in total employment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the US Dept Labor - July 2008, " Over the past 12
>>>>>> months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 1.6
>>>>>> million" -
>>>>> And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
>>>>>
>>>>>> July was the seventh straight month of job losses.
>>>>> And the unemployment rate isnt even 6%
>>>> Links to these facts have been repeated over and over
>>> You're lying, as always.
>>>
>>>> In the US if you are unemployed during a reporting period but
>>>> simply scan ads without applying for a job you are not considered
>>>> to be unemployed during that period.
>
>>> You're lying, as always.
>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>> From the very link you posted
>
> Still true, liar.
>
>> Passive methods of jobsearch do not result in jobseekers actually contacting potential employers, and therefore are
>> not acceptable for classifying persons as unemployed.
>
> You're lying, as always.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>> These would include such things as attending a job training program or course or merely reading the want ads.
>
> You're lying, as always.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>>>> The major part of unemployment comes from people registering at
>>>> state employment offices,something one needs to do when they are
>>>> getting unemployment benefits. Since most jobs at those offices are
>>>> the bottom of the barrel many stop registering when benefits run out.
>
>>> You're lying, as always.
>>> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>>>> For the last few years the weekly number of new jobless claims has regularly exceeded the monthly number of jobs
>>>> created.
>
>>> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Thats only happened quite recently.
>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/24/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm
>
> Doesnt say anything like your lie, liar.
>
>> February 24, 2005: 9:05 AM EST
>
>> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Weekly jobless claims rose last week, the
>> government said Thursday in reporting a figure that was higher than forecasts.
>
> Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
>
>> New claims for state unemployment benefits rose to 312,000 in the week ended Feb. 19 from a revised 303,000 the prior
>> week.
>
> Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
>
>> http://www.amtonline.org/document_display.cfm/document_id/617/section_id/102/262000newjobscreatedinfebruary2005
>
> Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
>
>> The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 262,000 new payroll jobs
>> were created in February 2005. Since May 2003, the economy has
>> created over 3 million jobs. We have seen steady jobs gains for each of the last twenty-one months - and more
>> Americans are working than ever before.
>
> Irrelevant to your lie, liar.
>
>
Let's see. I state the new weekly jobless claims regularly exceed
monthly jobs created. Ros said that is a recent thing. I post two links,
one shows 262,000 new jobs created in Feb.,2005 while the other shows
312,000 new unemployment claims for one week in that month.
Rod even includes those number in his reply but,as usual, whenever
he is faced with facts all he can do is say"liar" and "irrelevant".
No wonder he is on welfare.
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 8:14 pm
From: William Souden
Rod Speed wrote:
> Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> nearly 1% of homes are currently in foreclosure - over 6% of
>>> mortgages are in default.
>>>
>> How many of these were by morons who were trying to keep up with the
>> Joneses'? Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore? And don't
>> blame mortgage lenders. Democrats, including Obama in his previous
>> roles, had a lot to do with forcing banks to give mortgages to people
>> who really shouldn't have had them. Responsible people who took out
>> loans and are paying them back faithfully are really the ones getting screwed,
>
> Nope, not when interest rates are essentially set by the fed.
>
>> along with taxpayers having to bail out those whose money IQ is somewhere between 1 and 50.
>
> No one is bailing them out.
>
>
How will welfare boy respond to this, Will he say it is
"irrelevant"?,"bullshit" or got to the flushing bot? All admissions that
the facts have failed him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11cnd-housing.html?hp
The bill would authorize the Federal Housing Administration to insure up
to $300 billion in refinanced mortgages, enabling borrowers now saddled
with unaffordable loans to assume more manageable 30-year fixed-rate
loans. To take part in the program, lenders would have to lower each
debt obligation to 90 percent of a home's current value and also make a
payment to an insurance fund to insulate taxpayers against losses from
any future defaults.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fowl Math
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3f704369916fd0d6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:20 pm
From: The Real Bev
Terri wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Terri wrote::
>>> Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While you're at it, maybe you can also figure out if a chicken and a
>>>> half can lay an egg and a half in a day in a half, how long will it
>>>> take a grasshopper with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a
>>>> dill pickle?
>>>> ;-)
>>> Hah! I'd forgotten just how evil you really are!
>>>
>>> Maybe I'll just go shoot and eat the neighbor's noisy peacocks.
>>
>> Report back, possibly with recipes. I'm sure the people in Arcadia
>> (wild free-range PROTECTED peacocks,
>
> Wait. Protected?? WHY?
Because. Lucky Baldwin imported them for his "ranch" and they've
multiplied handily. The city fathers think they're a tourist attraction
or something and there's a law against molesting the peacocks. They're
awfully pretty and the babies are cute, but I would think that the
screaming gets pretty old pretty quickly.
>> but I doubt anybody would tattle).
>> Damn things poop green glue.
>>
> Oddly enough, since I posted that I've noticed there hasn't been a
> single peacock heard. I've also noticed a huge increase in coyote
> calls lately as well.
> Coincidence?
> Might have to leave an extra snack for Wile E.
You obviously forgot that coyotes can read. They don't post much, but
they lurk a lot.
--
Cheers,
Bev
*********************************************
Not all cultures are equal. If they were, we
would have a lot more cannibal restaurants.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: does anybody here know anything abou freecycle
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/af17f8e5c05bfdd7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 5:39 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Aug 5, 2:11 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> >"http://theeliteconnoisseurs.blogspot.com/" <onceuponaclas...@inbox.com>
> >wrote in message
> >news:7eec5d8e-8079-4f76-bb58-f8d62aaba177@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>I've heard of it just wondering how it works.
>
> >i think you were just trying to spam your ebay store.
>
> That crossed my mind as well.
That or the "blogspot"? :D
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Checking Accounts
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/468370d2e27158de?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 6:31 pm
From: teresaemtb2qpvls@gmail.com
The fact is that if you need information about a checking account this
site gives some great information for free: http://checkingaccount.nnrblogs.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The leeches are reaching for more
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c1f04e2aa1094da5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 5 2008 9:01 pm
From: Gordon
Back in the early '70's my father had a mortgage, an electric bill
a phone bill, a water bill and once a year we filled up the heating oil
tank.
Sewer and garbage was paid from taxes.
Today, I have a Mortgage, an electric bill, a phone bill,
a cell phone bill, an internet access bill, I could have
a cable TV bill, A water + sewer bill, a garbage collection
bill. Basicly, more services to pay for.
Of course it's not that simple.
Cable TV wants you to buy a priemium package,
Cell phone wants to tack on IM, chat, and data
packages,
And then there are those web sites like Classmates.com
Facebook, Geneology.com, 2nd life, (and for my daughter)
Club penguine, Bratz, Petz.com, etc that want to
sell priemium membership.
Hoo Boy! The leeches are everywhere!
==============================================================================
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