Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 9 topics

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to get a good Reverse Mortgage?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1a1ccdaf51ae319d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 12 2008 9:23 pm
From: A VFW

In article <xiYnk.11840$Bt6.5480@newsfe04.iad>,
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

> A VFW wrote:
>
> >why do they charge so much to set up what is basically a lien on your
> >property?
> >
> >
>
> risk that some might live longer than expected / risk that values may
> actually ........ drop

Well, I proposed to an possible investor, a closed term of 12 yrs.
and a very modest loan of $120 K plus interest . 1/3 acre in California.
I'm 65 with Diabetes. May live to 83, like my father but the loan gets
repaid in 12 yrs. or sooner. good deal for someone. and I only need
one.
--
If guns are out-lawed. Only the Out-laws & politicians will have guns.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To juice or not.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 2:57 am
From: "Mike"

"Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> cybercat wrote:
>
>>
>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>> >>
>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>> >>
>> >>your pal,
>> >>blake
>> >
>> >
>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>
>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
> when
>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>
>
> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years? Be
> *specific*...

Thats amazing, just fucking amazing

>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 8:45 am
From: blake murphy

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
> message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>> cybercat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
>>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>>> >>
>>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>>> >>
>>> >>your pal,
>>> >>blake
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>>
>>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
>> when
>>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>>
>>
>> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years? Be
>> *specific*...
>
> Thats amazing, just fucking amazing
>

he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.

your pal,
blake

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 9:28 am
From: "cybercat"

"blake murphy" <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yh5bunfx4akz$.1ibveyexclizi.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
>> message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> cybercat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
>>>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
>>>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>your pal,
>>>> >>blake
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in than
>>> when
>>>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
>>>
>>>
>>> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years?
>>> Be
>>> *specific*...
>>
>> Thats amazing, just fucking amazing
>>
>
> he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.
>

And he's amazing like a train wreck.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 12:40 pm
From: "Gregory Morrow"

blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:57:49 -0700, Mike wrote:
>
> > "Gregory Morrow" <FlyPrahaJakartaByTU104Jet@flyokayflycsa.cz> wrote in
> > message news:3omdnY9LN696_AbVnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >>
> >> cybercat wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Pan" <ohco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:adcm949ucu80cmbho6hfc6s58vm8urlu3a@4ax.com...
> >>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:51:01 GMT, blake murphy
> >>> > <blakepmNOTTHIS@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>> You go first. Can you name a positive Bush (GW) achievement ?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>he managed to make richard nixon look pretty good in retrospect.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>your pal,
> >>> >>blake
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > And he is way better then Carter and Clinton.
> >>>
> >>> Yes indeed, you can tell by how much better shape the nation is in
than
> >> when
> >>> Clinton was president. Jesus. What a moron you are.
> >>
> >>
> >> What was this "better shape" that we were in during the Clinton years?
Be
> >> *specific*...
> >
> > Thats amazing, just fucking amazing
> >
>
> he's not drinking the kool-aid, he's smoking it.

Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face,
blake... :-)

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm

Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2001

Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services

Clinton's Economic Legacy

by Mark Weisbrot

"America' 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, is likely to be
remembered for the longest- running business cycle expansion in American
history, which coincided with his two terms.

A fair assessment of his legacy should therefore begin by asking what, if
anything, the President had to do with the economic growth of the last nine
and a half years. The answer is: well, nothing really.

It is often maintained, by people who have not looked at the economics, that
balancing the federal budget and moving it to surplus were responsible for
the economic boom that followed.

But there is no foundation for this claim. The underlying theory is that
these budget changes lead to lower long-term interest rates, because the
government is borrowing less. The lower interest rates then stimulate more
investment and therefore growth.

Even if one accepts the theory-- which is quite a stretch-- the facts don't
fit the case. This was not an investment-led upswing. And the effects of the
post- 1992 budget changes on interest rates are much too small to have had
any noticeable positive impact on growth, according to any standard model
used by economists.

How then to explain the boom? While any business cycle expansion has
multiple causes, two stand out here. The first, and most important, was a
change in policy at the Federal Reserve about five and a half years ago. The
Fed, which had previously operated under the theory that six percent
unemployment was the best that the economy could do without accelerating
inflation, abandoned that view. Unemployment was allowed to fall to its
current 4 percent, and growth continued beyond the point at which the Fed,
in the past, would have pulled the plug.

The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock
holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend
freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth
that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy--
much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by
the federal government.

Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he
necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy
shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic
policy in the last 20 years.

The economic policies for which the President can honestly claim
responsibility-- e.g., NAFTA, the creation and expansion of the World Trade
Organization-- served primarily to prevent the majority of Americans from
sharing in the gains from economic growth. And then there was welfare
reform, which threw millions of poor single mothers at the mercy of one of
the lowest-wage labor markets in the industrialized world.

In short, Clinton's policies continued the upward redistribution of income
and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the
Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its
pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years
ago.

Clinton's foreign economic policy was similar, although more devastating.
His administration, together with its allies at the IMF and the World Bank,
presided over the destruction of the Russian economy, helped to cause and
worsen the Asian economic crisis, and squeezed billions in debt service from
the poorest countries in Africa. Not to mention racking up a record,
economically unsustainable trade deficit for the United States.

Clinton's legacy is by no means an academic question. If the economy fares
badly over the next few years, the Clinton era will look quite good by
comparison. The "New Democrat" strategy of abandoning core constituencies--
especially working Americans-- in favor of big business and the rich will be
judged an economic and political success.

In reality it was neither: Clinton's fight for NAFTA cost his party the
House in 1994, and the New Democrats' long-term strategy to win back the
South could hardly have failed more miserably: Gore did not carry a single
Southern state, not even his home state of Tennessee. So long as Democrats
continue to offer the average American nothing to improve his or her
economic situation, many voters-- and not only in the South-- will continue
to vote against them on the basis of issues that are irrelevant to their
economic well- being.

George W. Bush may well hand the White House back to the Democrats in 2004,
if his extremist cabinet nominations are any indication of his political
judgment. But if Bush's successor is to do any good for America or the
world, we will first need an honest evaluation of the Clinton years..."

Mark Weisbrot is Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
in Washington and Co- author, With Dean Baker, of "Social Security: the
Phony Crisis" (University of Chicago, 2000)

</>

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 1:32 pm
From: clams_casino

Gregory Morrow wrote:

>
>
>
>Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face,
>blake... :-)
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm
>
>
>
>

What you and the author of this article don't seemed to understand is
that presidents may do little directly, but they set the tone for the
country through their actions. The economy is a direct reflection of
such perceptions. Investors invest, people spend and business expands
based on future expectations. With GW, the masses flocked to bonds &
CDs, fearful of his leadership . The Fed tried to bail him out though
historically low interest rates, but neither investors nor business took
the bait. That cheap money simply went into the housing bubble - not
into investment / business expansion, as intended.

Under Clinton, most thought the party would never end and spent /
invested accordingly with business expanding on most all fronts. Jobs
were plentiful, wages climbed and tax receipts grew accordingly.,

Under GW, it's been doom and gloom from the day he won the election..
Investment slowed, spending slowed, sentiment soured and business
expansion came to a halt / reversing direction. A recession soon
developed. He has done little to change any of those negative
perceptions, thus the poor economy has lingered on over the past seven
years. The mid term stock market gains were primarily a rebound from
being oversold after 9/11. It's gone essentially nowhere over the
past eight years with an incredible increase in debt and a greatly
deteriorated value to our dollar.

Reagan was good at that - motivating people into believing times were
good & that they would get better. He basically talked the economy
around. Clinton was able to further that perception after the economy
nearly fell apart under Bush Sr. Ford tried to talk the US out of its
problems in the 70's (Whip Inflation Now), but he was not dynamic enough
to carry it off.

The major difference between McBush & Obama is that Obama is firing up
people, building hope & expectations. McBush comes across as just a
tired old guy who intends to continue down the same old tired path set
by GW - more doom and gloom.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 13 2008 2:42 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
> Gregory Morrow wrote

>> Maybe if you're nice cybercat will help you wipe the egg off of yer face, blake... :-)

>> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0109-04.htm

> What you and the author of this article don't seemed to understand is that presidents may do little directly, but they
> set the tone for the country through their actions.

No they dont. Thats just the line of bullshit their sales fools claim and you are stupid enough to buy that.

The only real effect any Prez has is with stuff like the invasion of Iraq and
even with that, there is just the tiny matter that Congress supported that.

> The economy is a direct reflection of such perceptions.

Like hell it is. The .com fiasco had nothing to do with the Prez
and the sub prime fiasco wasnt caused by the Prez either.

Not even indirectly via Prez policy in either case.

> Investors invest, people spend and business expands based on future expectations.

Yes, but thats got nothing to do with who is the current Prez.

> With GW, the masses flocked to bonds & CDs, fearful of his leadership .

Pig ignorant lie.

> The Fed tried to bail him out though historically low interest rates,

Pig ignorant lie.

> but neither investors nor business took the bait.

Have fun explaining the real estate boom.

> That cheap money simply went into the housing bubble

Yep, and that was nothing to do with bailing out any Prez.

> - not into investment / business expansion, as intended.

That is investment / business expansion, fool.

> Under Clinton, most thought the party would never end and spent / invested accordingly with business expanding on most
> all fronts.

Nothing to do with Slick, everything to do with the usual herd mentality stuff.

> Jobs were plentiful, wages climbed and tax receipts grew accordingly.,

Nothing to do with Slick.

> Under GW, it's been doom and gloom from the day he won the election..

Bare faced pig ignorant lie. The .com boom went bust before the shrub ever showed up.

> Investment slowed, spending slowed, sentiment soured and business expansion came to a halt / reversing direction.

Nothing to do with the shrub, everything to do with the .com fiasco going bang.

> A recession soon developed.

Nothing to do with the shrub, everything to do with the .com fiasco going bang.

And that happened before the shrub showed up too.

> He has done little to change any of those negative perceptions, thus the poor economy has lingered on over the past
> seven years.