Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 8 topics

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: WHAT NOW? Survival of the fittest!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f7c466e37ae04ad0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 7:51 am
From: "Zeke"

It is called "Pay as you go"

Can the house purchasers that signed documents that said the house was going
to be their primary home, but they never lived in them, be prosecuted for
fraud?

Some had signed those document for 2 & 3 or more houses & flipped them.
Some went into foreclosure.

The document was necessary to get a mortgage for no money down & they could
only make interest payments. Many got rich by flipping the houses before
the bust.

Z
"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:BmoEk.7694$891.1807@newsfe07.iad...
>
> It's obviously highly selfish, but we and likely a very significant number
> of others) have begun a lock down of spending. Until the Dow recovers
> above 12,000, our household will be postponing all non essential spending.
> We intend to only pay fixed bills such as insurance, taxes & mortgage
> while minimizing essential spending for food, utilities & gasoline and
> eliminating / postponing all other spending.
>
> Obviously, if a significant number follow this path, one can expect a
> continuing accelerating downturn for many years.
>
> We've already started by eliminating all meals out and have canceled plans
> for a vacation next month (sorry motels, restaurants & movie theaters) and
> as a family, we've agreed not to meet for Thanksgiving nor Christmas this
> year (sorry airlines and retail stores).
>
> Only the trailer park welfare recipents will be relatively untouched if
> some type of rescue plan is not enacted.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 8:10 am
From: clams_casino

jisseigh wrote:

>Well, claims, your family has somewhat of a headstart on reduction of
>non-essential spending, since you haven't bought any bath soap,
>deodorant, toothpaste, or toilet paper since December 2008. Good
>work!
>
>

You are partially correct. We have an ample inventory of all those
products to last well into next year, having bought them up when on sale
over recent months.

Granted, some items like the above are relatively inelastic and will
eventually be purchased, but many items such as meals out, motel bills,
travel costs, entertainment expenses, delaying haircuts etc will never
be made up.

Employment in those & similar areas will likely continue to decline
significantly if / when the economy continues to worsen.

The bailout is not for the wealthy. It's the manufacturing & service
areas which will feel the effect most.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 11:44 am
From: phil scott

On Sep 30, 2:17 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:05:58 -0700, raggedge <rag...@lockn.load>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >WHAT NOW? Survival of the fittest!
>
> >With the stock market having begun its crash and the federal
> >government having refused to intervene, many of you are now asking
> >"What's next?" I have the answers and they aren't pretty.
>
> >The stock market will continue its slide, losing one-third to one-half
> >of its overall value within a week or two. Those with pensions will
> >see dramatic decreases in their monthly checks.
>
> >The dysfunctional credit markets will not change in any meaningful way
> >in any effective time frame. As things stand now, almost no one can
> >get credit. Consumers cannot get loans to buy cars or houses.
> >Businesses cannot get loans to meet payroll, re-stock their inventory
> >or buy raw materials to do manufacturing. With the situation as it is,
> >we are going to watch almost our entire economy grind to a halt.
>
> >As the economy tanks - which will happen extremely fast - people will
> >be laid off or let go as companies downsize or go out of business. So
> >look for massive unemployment very fast.
>
> >With millions of people losing jobs, the number of defaults on credit
> >card payments, mortgage payments, car payments and the like will
> >absolutely skyrocket. The sheer number of defaults will take out over
> >one thousand U.S. Banks.
>
> >The U.S. Government will try to shore-up the banks and the economy by
> >spending more, but no one will lend them the money so the government
> >will print it. As the government prints several trillion more dollars,
> >the rest of the world will reject our currency as worthless.
>
> >When that happens, all the goods we import from abroad - including oil
> >- will become stunningly expensive, then run out as overseas
> >manufacturers simply refuse to accept our worthless money.
>
> >With almost all U.S. manufacturing jobs having been shipped overseas
> >under NAFTA and GATT, we don't even have the infrastructure to resume
> >manufacturing here in America.
>
> >When oil stops flowing in from overseas because OPEC won't take our
> >cash, the real trouble starts. Without oil to provide diesel fuel or
> >gasoline, trucks will not have fuel to transport food or anything
> >else.
>
> >As trucks run out of fuel and deliveries cease the cities will run out
> >of food first. Most supermarkets only stock two to three days worth of
> >food. No trucks means no deliveries and within days, the cities will
> >run out of almost everything. This will cause almost immediate civil
> >unrest by "you-know-who."
>
> >Roving bands of hungry savages will then take to the streets looking
> >to feed themselves. It will be ugly anarchy. People will be killing
> >other people for food.
>
> >Police will be almost immediately overwhelmed, making 911 useless. If
> >you cannot protect yourself, your family and your property with guns,
> >then you will likely die.
>
> >When the cities are cleaned out and the savages have stolen all they
> >can steal, they will turn their sights on the suburbs. Small suburban
> >police departments will be instantly overwhelmed. Only those citizens
> >who can protect themselves with guns will survive.
>
> >We are entering a new phase of life here in America: survival of the
> >fittest. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> >When "you-know-who" comes to loot, steal and kill they will get gunned
> >down; and I think that will be a really good thing; we'll finally be
> >rid of "them."
>
> >With no jobs, the illegal aliens won't have any incentive to stay, so
> >they'll leave too. That will be a really good thing because we'll
> >finally be rid of "them" too.
>
> >But the best part of this will be what happens to the "money-
> >changers;" descendants of those same vipers that Jesus threw out of
> >the Temple. They are going to get it really badly because in the end,
> >every one of us knows they are the ones who caused all of this
> >financial turmoil. If they thought World War 2 was a holocaust, they
> >should stay tuned; this time we'll get it right. Once we are rid of
> >these parasites, things will be better for decades.
>
> >For the short-term, the pain of survival of the fittest. Yet in the
> >long term, the gains we make will ultimately outweigh the pain.
>
> >This is long overdue. Prepare to lock and load. Good luck.
>
> Bring it on! Only out of social and financial chaos can a better
> nation be created.
>
> ted- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

that is correct.... in all of history there has not been a single
exception.... its nasty though.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Birk (bailout)Plan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7353d0c8c3ba3c4a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 7:58 am
From: "Dave"

> >>>
> >>Obviously you have no concept of what's going on - the problem or the
> >>proposed solution.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >OK, enlighten me. Where will the U.S. government get $700 BILLION
without
> >borrowing it from other countries, like China, for example?
> >
>
> For a start, they aren't simply handing out $700M as you imply.

No, the figure is 700Billion. But I'll cut you some slack, as I'm sure that
was a typo.

> They
> will be using that money to buy assets

Which have no monetary value, as they are backed by bankrupt and mis-managed
financial institutions.

>& hold them off the market until
> the economy improves.

And when do you think THAT will be? Optimistically, I'm guessing I won't be
alive to see that happen. And that's the optimistic viewpoint. The
realistic viewpoint...unless we radically change our FORM of government
(like converting to direct democracy for example), then the same-old
same-old is going to keep this economy in dire straits indefinitely.

> By holding those assets, there will be
> significantly less pressure on homeowners to walk from their mortgages,
> less pressure in forcing home owners to sell and allow banks to lend
> where money is needed (most businesses borrow for inventory, etc).

Now see, we are going to disagree on whether this 700BN bailout is a good
idea or not. But what you have not failed to consider yet is, even if we
were stupid enough to do it, would it help? The simple answer is, even
though 700BN is a huge chunk of change, it is nowhere NEAR enough money to
prop up the economy in the way that you seem to think it will. To do that,
you'd need to think in terms of (what's after trillions????????????????????)

>
> If / when the economy improves, there is actually a potential to make
> money on the resale of those assets.

No, you can't make money from selling assets of bankrupt financial
institutions. This should be self-evident, no explanation necessary.
Again, the 700BN won't prevent these corporations from going under, just
delay it a bit. Possibly.

> If the economy continues its
> downward spiral, it won't matter much anyhow.

Finally something we agree on.

> The purpose is to lessen
> / bridge the trough of the current recession. The deeper the trough,
> the longer it will be before there will be a recovery - possibly 10-20
> years vs. a few years.

And a measly 700BN won't bridge anything. -Dave

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 8:18 am
From: clams_casino

Dave wrote:

>
>No, you can't make money from selling assets of bankrupt financial
>institutions.
>

Hm - I wonder why Warren Buffet has invested $5B in Goldman Sachs. I
wonder why Citigroup has bought up Wacovia bank?

Obviously they don't know what you know.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question about a new website called Bailecn
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbb64cc5bd1e6f4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 8:00 am
From: itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net

On Sep 30, 9:25 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 8:29 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> >>itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >>>>You obviously made that up. Try to find gullible in a major dictionary.
>
> >>>Evidently you don't know how to use a dictionary. I have no problem
> >>>finding the word 'gullible' in any dictionary. Try picking up one and
> >>>going to the G's, take your time, there's no hurry, flip the pages and
> >>>you'll find the word gullible.
>
> >>>Spelling wasn't a strong point for you, was it??
>
> >>You're making that up, right?
>
> >>You need to recheck and see if it's still there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >You just don't know when you're beat, do you? What dictionary are
> >*you* looking in?? Try Encarta, try any dictionary for that matter,
> >whether online or an actual hardcopy version.
>
> >Just retrieved from Encarta:
>
> >gul·li·ble [ gúlləb'l ]
>
> >adjective
>
> >Definition:
>
> >easily duped: tending to trust and believe people, and therefore
> >easily tricked or deceived
>
> >[Early 19th century. <gull2]
>
> > gul·li·bil·i·ty [ gùllə bíllətee ] noun
> >gul·li·bly [ gúlləblee ] adverb
>
> >Satisfied that it's REALLY in modern, up-to-date dictionaries and
> >still a word in use????
>
> >A little knowledge goes a long way.
>
> Is it still there today?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm tired of farting with you; you're acting like stupidity is a
virtue. You'll have to post to yourself from now on.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 10:30 am
From: clams_casino

itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net wrote:

>On Sep 30, 9:25 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 30, 8:29 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You obviously made that up. Try to find gullible in a major dictionary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Evidently you don't know how to use a dictionary. I have no problem
>>>>>finding the word 'gullible' in any dictionary. Try picking up one and
>>>>>going to the G's, take your time, there's no hurry, flip the pages and
>>>>>you'll find the word gullible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Spelling wasn't a strong point for you, was it??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>You're making that up, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You need to recheck and see if it's still there.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You just don't know when you're beat, do you? What dictionary are
>>>*you* looking in?? Try Encarta, try any dictionary for that matter,
>>>whether online or an actual hardcopy version.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just retrieved from Encarta:
>>>
>>>
>>>gul·li·ble [ gúlləb'l ]
>>>
>>>
>>>adjective
>>>
>>>
>>>Definition:
>>>
>>>
>>>easily duped: tending to trust and believe people, and therefore
>>>easily tricked or deceived
>>>
>>>
>>>[Early 19th century. <gull2]
>>>
>>>
>>>gul·li·bil·i·ty [ gùllə bíllətee ] noun
>>>gul·li·bly [ gúlləblee ] adverb
>>>
>>>
>>>Satisfied that it's REALLY in modern, up-to-date dictionaries and
>>>still a word in use????
>>>
>>>
>>>A little knowledge goes a long way.
>>>
>>>
>>Is it still there today?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>
>I'm tired of farting with you; you're acting like stupidity is a
>virtue. You'll have to post to yourself from now on.
>
>

Aw - Just when it was starting be fun.

Are all webtv users as smart as you are?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 11:34 am
From: Dennis

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:30:53 -0400, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>On Sep 30, 9:25 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sep 30, 8:29 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>itsjoannotjo...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You obviously made that up. Try to find gullible in a major dictionary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evidently you don't know how to use a dictionary. I have no problem
>>>>>>finding the word 'gullible' in any dictionary. Try picking up one and
>>>>>>going to the G's, take your time, there's no hurry, flip the pages and
>>>>>>you'll find the word gullible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spelling wasn't a strong point for you, was it??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You're making that up, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You need to recheck and see if it's still there.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>You just don't know when you're beat, do you? What dictionary are
>>>>*you* looking in?? Try Encarta, try any dictionary for that matter,
>>>>whether online or an actual hardcopy version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just retrieved from Encarta:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>gul·li·ble [ gúll?b'l ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>adjective
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Definition:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>easily duped: tending to trust and believe people, and therefore
>>>>easily tricked or deceived
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Early 19th century. <gull2]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>gul·li·bil·i·ty [ gùll? bíll?tee ] noun
>>>>gul·li·bly [ gúll?blee ] adverb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Satisfied that it's REALLY in modern, up-to-date dictionaries and
>>>>still a word in use????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A little knowledge goes a long way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Is it still there today?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm tired of farting with you; you're acting like stupidity is a
>>virtue. You'll have to post to yourself from now on.
>>
>>
>
>Aw - Just when it was starting be fun.
>
>Are all webtv users as smart as you are?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

(Well done, BTW. :-)

Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I'm celebrating because the bailout failed!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8ad3e712cb6e0e31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 8:08 am
From: "Dave"

> >> The people know crap.
> >
> > It's that arrogant attitude that is exactly why our current form of
> > government does not work. It's supposed to be of the people, by the
people
> > and for the people. It's actually of a wealthy subset of the people, by
a
> > wealthy subset of the people and for only a wealthy subset of the
people.
> > It simply doesn't work for "the people".
>
> I'm continually surprised at how little most people know. JayWalking
> is widespread. IMHO, if the people were thinking, George W Bush would
> not have made a second term.

Actually, the outcome of any particular election is not an indication of
what the people are thinking, or even if they are thinking. Most people
figured out long ago that the outcome of an election does not matter. It
always boils down to a choice of two or more criminals. Why bother to even
vote? Like the next presidential election. Our choices are...
Damn, we're FUCKED no matter who wins

> The debt won't be unsecured, there will be something to back it up.

Yes, assets of bankrupt, mis-managed financial institutions, likely worth
less than zero. I feel sooooooooooo much better about the plan now. -Dave

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 10:45 am
From: clams_casino

Jeff wrote:

> OhioGuy wrote:
>
>> I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today
>> than ever before regarding the bailout.
>>
>> Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices
>> be heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the
>> companies who caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them
>> the door in about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way
>> it should, with representatives REPRESENTING the will of their
>> constituents.
>
>
> The people know crap.
>
>>
>> I think the bailout as worded was a rush job that would have done
>> very little to alleviate the current situation. We simply need to
>> take a month to look things over,
>
>
> In the last week or so, the largest Thrift, the largest Chevy dealer,
> the largest mortgage lender and the largest investment banks have
> failed. Wachovia went down today.
>
> Lets just say , for arguments sake, that all that doesn't amount to
> much.
>
> Lets look instead at the typical business that borrows money while
> they wait for receipts to come in. That money is needed to pay for
> payrolls and other goods and services. Right now the mechanism to
> borrow that short term money is broken.
>
> I don't know what the "right" plan is. But I can tell you that if
> nothing is done, in the next month, you'll see a wave of collapses
> that hasn't been seen since '29. What the Fed is doing now is treating
> the frozen credit market ad hoc.
>

On a local level, even with price increases over the past year, our
state-wide taxes on restaurant meals were recently reported to be down
sharply vs. 2007 - a direct indication of restaurant business. Many
towns are reporting 40-50% declines. Last week, I stopped in a local
pizzeria for a grinder. It was lunch hour. They would normally have
two in the kitchen and one or two waitresses. The owner was alone,
busing tables, waiting, cooking, cashier, etc. I was his only customer
between 12 - 12:30.

Today I noticed a local Ford car lot with a noticeable void in
inventory. Ford typically requires its dealers to take on inventory.
This lot has historically been jammed with new cars. The lot appears to
be about 1/3 empty.

Today, I took a walk along our downtown, I passed two barber shops,
two nail salons and a hair dresser, all with clear street side windows.
All had a single employee (likely the owner) with NO customers. I
passed about a dozen restaurants & saw maybe 2-8 diners between 12 -
1. Normally, it's near impossible to find parking on the main st.
This afternoon, a good 1/4 and possible 1/3 of the street parking was
available. The shops were noticeable empty. Just two years ago,, there
was much concern that there was not ample parking to support the down
town shops. It looked much like a typical small southern town about a
year after a Walmart came to town.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 10:55 am
From: Jeff

Dave wrote:
>>>> The people know crap.
>>> It's that arrogant attitude that is exactly why our current form of
>>> government does not work. It's supposed to be of the people, by the
> people
>>> and for the people. It's actually of a wealthy subset of the people, by
> a
>>> wealthy subset of the people and for only a wealthy subset of the
> people.
>>> It simply doesn't work for "the people".
>> I'm continually surprised at how little most people know. JayWalking
>> is widespread. IMHO, if the people were thinking, George W Bush would
>> not have made a second term.
>
> Actually, the outcome of any particular election is not an indication of
> what the people are thinking, or even if they are thinking. Most people
> figured out long ago that the outcome of an election does not matter. It
> always boils down to a choice of two or more criminals. Why bother to even
> vote? Like the next presidential election. Our choices are...
> Damn, we're FUCKED no matter who wins
>
>
I don't believe it is possible to have done a worse job than Chicken Little.

Even Angela Merkel repeatedly warned him a year ago about this mess
which was plainly visible even from Germany. She had a list of
proposals. But old W told her that everything was fine that we needed no
help.

It's been the conscious effort to reduce oversight and let the sharks
feed that has marked this administration. It's the perfect storm of
ignoring the evidence and running on faith.
>
>
>> The debt won't be unsecured, there will be something to back it up.
>
> Yes, assets of bankrupt, mis-managed financial institutions, likely worth
> less than zero. I feel sooooooooooo much better about the plan now. -Dave

You are buying them now irregardless. Look at the guarantees that
have been given out for all these recent failures. It's quite open ended.

Jeff
>
>
>
>

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 12:53 pm
From: Dennis

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:24:10 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:00:19 -0400, clams_casino
><PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>Hope you get to keep your job. Hope you are >20 years from retirement.
>>Hope your home mortgage loan doesn't get called.
>
>Scare tactics. Sounds like Paulson, the guy who pulled down a $45
>million salary at Goldman Sachs the year he left to work for the guv.
>Had to sell his Goldman Sachs stock first though. $500 million.
>Now whining for help for his buddies. Fast. Must do right now.
>The feds should take their time with this.
>Think about it. This mess is caused by increasing debt.
>The guv wants to pump in money to keep increasing debt.
>They'll just make things worse.

Gotta agree with you. I think what sealed it for me was seeing Steve
Forbes on TV last night whining about how we really, really need the
bailout or unpseakably awful things will happen.

You have to follow the money -- look at who is pushing the bailout the
hardest.

Now, do you trust them?

Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DOW up, bailout not needed, money would be looted by Wall Street
thieves.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/646b5e32c2a237b5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 9:19 am
From: hpope@lycos.com

Whatta farce! And the unsophisticated will keep getting fleeced.
Democrats, and this is difficult to understand, opted to support Bush
and Wall Street gangs.

Email your folks in congress, "no bailout",

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress

mitch

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 11:03 am
From: "Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.org>

<hpope@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:b959d793-3b44-4c63-955e-a84dbc2601a6@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Whatta farce! And the unsophisticated will keep getting fleeced.
> Democrats, and this is difficult to understand, opted to support Bush
> and Wall Street gangs.

Foolish one: the Democrats supported the bill because it would have made
the Sec'y of the Treasury the most powerful man in the US. Then, after
Obama got elected, they'd put their own man in there, and with all Dems all
the time running government, government would soon be running *you.*

So yeah: a massive expansion of government control over everybody's lives?
You bet they supported it.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 12:29 pm
From: Jeff

hpope@lycos.com wrote:
> Whatta farce! And the unsophisticated will keep getting fleeced.
> Democrats, and this is difficult to understand, opted to support Bush
> and Wall Street gangs.

The Democrats supported it because it was thought to be better than
the alternatives. We've effectively nationalized Freddy and Fanny and
AIG and are on the hook for billions and billions on WAMU, Wachovia and
Bear Sterns.

Now every Republican will just spout that Democrats are the party of
big government and hide from the explosion in the size of the government
under their own watch. All they can say is that things would be so much
worse with a Democratic President. But how could it be worse? The
national debt is double, the government already owns or has a large
stake in the biggest insurer, thrift and mortgage managers. There has
been nothing like it before, it is a uniquely George W Bush experience.

The Republicans didn't support it because they think this mess can be
resolved with more tax breaks and cuts. The same remedy they trot out
for everything. That and the election is near and they have no nerve to
stand up to the electorate no matter what the state of the economy.
>
> Email your folks in congress, "no bailout",

You will still be paying billions without it. Have you missed the last
couple of weeks? And, if anything, the fattest cats will get fatter...
The free lunch has been eaten.

Jeff
>
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress
>
> mitch

==============================================================================
TOPIC: more real stuff
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e73c054491d410b5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 10:31 am
From: Derald

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=307580926191184

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=307322285431688

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How many trillion has the FED already injected?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a9b52a8a6b700372?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 10:44 am
From: Jeff

TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
> In <48adnUCOY-q4un_VnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, on 09/30/2008
> at 09:18 AM, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> said:
>
>
>
>> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>> In <lMednbxoaqC_AnzVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@earthlink.com>, on 09/29/2008
>>> at 11:38 PM, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Robert Ladd wrote:
>>>>> "clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uTfEk.557$ex3.230@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>>> hpope@lycos.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, aeron...@flight.net wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just today another $630B....With this kind of injection, and banks
>>>>>>>> still not lending, what makes the FED think another $700B will do it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It just won't work. Look at the 100 billion stimulus package. Let
>>>>>>> affected
>>>>>>> banks go under.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mitch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you don't understand the problem or the proposed solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Explain then. One, the other, or both.
>>>> In one word: liquidity.
>>>> Google "Credit Crunch". You'll hit articles like this:
>>>> (Overview)
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902762.html?hpid=topnews
>>>> The basic problem here is that too many people don't understand the
>>>> seriousness of the situation.
>>> We can fix that when if and when it arrives. There is no reason to bail
>>> out the rich when they refuse to pay the fiddler with their money.
>
>> The whole problem is getting the credit market working without
>> bailing out the rich. But getting these markets working is important
>> indeed.
>
> What isn't working. Examples? Leave out the banks that have caused the
> problem by being stupid and greedy.
>
>
Look up TED spread. I know that where I live (Atlanta) many businesses
have been folding. All of the local governments are in trouble.
>
>
>> City and State governments are in the same place as corporations.
>> They can not get financing, and when they do it is at a high cost.
>
> Pundits keep sending out this line -->but gee, we do not have one sinple
> example of any state, city or corporation not getting the loans they need
> -->except for the banks that got themselves into the deep shit by being
> greedy and stupid.
>
> Let them go bankrupt, then the treasury can step in.
>

The Treasury has been stepping in. When the largest thrift failed
(Washington Mutual), we are on the hook for that with little chance of
recourse. It, of course, is not the only one. How much will Lehman
Brothers cost? Wachovia? Bear Sterns? And what about the hidden costs,
the ripples from Lehman have been large and widespread.

Many others are teetering.

So, which is better, spending billions to "fix" problems ad hoc, or to
resolve some of the underlying issues?

And what about these mega banks that are coming out of the soup?

What about the $600 billion the Fed is forking out to supply foreign
demand?

What we need is some leadership to forge a path. What we have is
Chicken Little.

Jeff

>
>> The house of cards has been stacked. Now, I can watch it fall, but I
>> doubt most people can.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Americans fail to understand that they are facing the real prospect of a
>>>> decade of little or no economic growth because of the bursting of a
>>>> credit bubble that they helped create and that now threatens to bring
>>>> down the global financial system.
>>>> Politicians worry less about preventing a financial meltdown than about
>>>> ideology, partisan posturing and teaching people a lesson. Financiers
>>>> have yet to own up publicly to their own greed, arrogance and
>>>> incompetence. And leaders of foreign governments still think that this
>>>> is an American problem and that they have no need to mount similar
>>>> rescue efforts in their own countries.
>>>> In the coming weeks and months, all of these people will come to
>>>> understand how deep the hole really is and how we're all in it together.
>>>> They'll come to understand that the giant sucking sound they hear is of
>>>> a massive deleveraging of the global economy and the global financial
>>>> system as households, governments, businesses and investment funds
>>>> adjust to living in a world with less debt and more inflation.
>>>> And they will come around, reluctantly, to the understanding that the
>>>> only way to get out of these situations is to have governments all
>>>> around the world borrow gobs of money and effectively nationalize large
>>>> swaths of the financial system so it can be restructured, recapitalized,
>>>> reformed and returned to private ownership once the crisis has passed
>>>> and the economy has gotten back on its feet.
>>>> In the next few weeks, the center of attention here in the United States
>>>> will shift from the Congress and an exhausted Treasury to the Federal
>>>> Deposit Insurance Corp., which will now have to rescue any number of
>>>> failing banks, either by taking them over directly or managing their
>>>> transfer into stronger hands. It will also shift back to the Federal
>>>> Reserve and other central banks, which will have to step up their
>>>> efforts to maintain liquidity in money markets and prevent the credit
>>>> crunch from taking down hedge funds, businesses, and state and local
>>>> governments.
>>>> These will, alas, be only holding actions. Restoring real stability to
>>>> financial markets will require the kind of systemic approach and
>>>> extraordinary government interventions that the public has refused to
>>>> authorize and finance. In better times, the public might have put aside
>>>> its reluctance in response to the strong and unified recommendation of
>>>> political and business leaders. But it is a measure of how little trust
>>>> remains in both Washington and Wall Street that voters are willing to
>>>> risk a serious hit to their wealth and income rather than follow their
>>>> lead.
>>>> (A few specifics)
>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080928_348088.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis
>>>> The ripple effects of the week that shook Wall Street are now being
>>>> painfully absorbed by nonfinancial companies across the nation, from
>>>> carmakers to casinos. "Tightening financial conditions have expanded to
>>>> reach nearly all sectors," says Diane Vazza, managing director of global
>>>> fixed income research at Standard & Poor's, which, like BusinessWeek, is
>>>> owned by The McGraw-Hill Companies (MHP). "Screaming headlines about the
>>>> financial sector might give some the misleading impression that
>>>> nonfinancials are mercifully out of the line of fire. Nothing could be
>>>> further from the truth. The heat will eventually spread."
>>>> A growing number of companies are already feeling the heat. As of Sept.
>>>> 9, 57 companies had defaulted on $45.3 billion of debt for the year,
>>>> according to S&P RatingsDirect, up from 22 companies defaulting in all
>>>> of 2007. (While not a bankruptcy, a default sets off clear alarm bells
>>>> about a company's fiscal health.) Of the 57, 45 are outside the
>>>> financial industry. And more defaults are likely on the way: Roughly 70%
>>>> of nonfinancial companies carry a noninvestment or junk credit rating.
>>>> S&P projects that the three-year cumulative default rate between 2008
>>>> and 2010 among nonfinancial firms with poor credit will rise to 23.2%,
>>>> the worst on record since 1981.
>>>> Discerning which firms will cave first is difficult, but S&P has
>>>> identified 162 "weakest links," or companies in danger of defaulting
>>>> over the next 12 months. It is the seventh straight month that the
>>>> roster of credit-unworthy firms has grown. On that list are high-profile
>>>> names such as United Airlines parent UAL, General Motors, Tribune, Six
>>>> Flags (SIX), and Trump Entertainment Resorts.
>>>
>>>> This is not about Wallstreet.
>>>> Jeff
>>>>> Robert Ladd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 10:56 am
From: "John James"

clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The basic problem here is that too many people don't understand the
>>> seriousness of the situation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We can fix that when if and when it arrives. There is no reason to
>> bail out the rich when they refuse to pay the fiddler with their
>> money.
>
>
> The fallacy is that the wealthy will generally survive a depression.
> They may lose 3/4 of their wealth, but they will remain wealthy. The poor will also remain generally untouched.

Depends on what you call the poor. Those with minimum wage jobs may well lose those jobs.

> It's the middle and upper middle classes that have the most to lose.

But often do have the resources like paid off houses that allow them to survive fine.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 10:58 am
From: "Rod Speed"

TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
> In <D9oEk.7329$891.5626@newsfe07.iad>, on 09/30/2008
> at 07:35 AM, clams_casino <Petergriffin@Drunkinclam.com> said:
>
>
>
>> TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The basic problem here is that too many people don't understand the
>>>> seriousness of the situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can fix that when if and when it arrives. There is no reason to
>>> bail out the rich when they refuse to pay the fiddler with their
>>> money.
>>>
>
>
>> The fallacy is that the wealthy will generally survive a depression.
>> They may lose 3/4 of their wealth, but they will remain wealthy. The
>> poor will also remain generally untouched. It's the middle and upper
>> middle classes that have the most to lose.
>
> Don't worry about it son. The people are going to throw the right
> wing out of office in November. The people will be taken care of in
> the end. The hell with the greedy, stupid crooks that caused the
> problem.
>
> Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to find bush and the right wing know
> this and have exaggerated the situation, hoping the congress would be
> stupid enough to blow all the money on the rich so they could nothing
> for the People come Jan.

They cant have exaggerated the situation when we have seen operations
like Lehmans that had been around for 150 years and which survived the
great depression fine, sink beneath the waves. And operations like WAMU
and Wachovia implode very spectacularly indeed.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 12:05 pm
From: clams_casino

John James wrote:

>clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>TruthTeller@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The basic problem here is that too many people don't understand the
>>>>seriousness of the situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>We can fix that when if and when it arrives. There is no reason to
>>>bail out the rich when they refuse to pay the fiddler with their
>>>money.
>>>
>>>
>>The fallacy is that the wealthy will generally survive a depression.
>>They may lose 3/4 of their wealth, but they will remain wealthy. The poor will also remain generally untouched.
>>
>>
>
>Depends on what you call the poor. Those with minimum wage jobs may well lose those jobs.
>
>

Correct. I should have said the very poor, as the working poor will
definately suffer.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 12:10 pm
From: clams_casino

Jeff wrote:

>
> The Treasury has been stepping in. When the largest thrift failed
> (Washington Mutual), we are on the hook for that with little chance of
> recourse.

Oddly, I received a credit card offer from WaMu in today's mail. Up to
about a month ago, such offers (from a variety of banks) were a daily
occurrence ( a noticeable void in recent weeks), but today's was
especially amusing as it was from Wamu.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 12:31 pm
From: Jeff

clams_casino wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>
>> The Treasury has been stepping in. When the largest thrift failed
>> (Washington Mutual), we are on the hook for that with little chance of
>> recourse.
>
>
>
> Oddly, I received a credit card offer from WaMu in today's mail. Up to
> about a month ago, such offers (from a variety of banks) were a daily
> occurrence ( a noticeable void in recent weeks), but today's was
> especially amusing as it was from Wamu.

ROFLMAO

Jeff

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CVS Pharmacist calls customer a "Fucking AIDS freak"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5f6c5d62367cf192?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 1:03 pm
From: Patriot Games

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:16:36 GMT, ezekielk@qwickconnect.net (Chief
Thracian) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:31:33 -0400, Patriot Games
><Patriot@America.Com> wrote:
>>There is no such thing as "bisexuals."
>What an illiterate statement.
>>Bisexuality is an ACTIVITY.
>So is homosexuality. So is heterosexuality. So is masturbation.

Wrong, wrong, correct.

>>Homosexuality is a GENETIC SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
>>Heterosexuality is a GENETIC SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
>So is bisexuality.

Wrong.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 1:16 pm
From: Patriot Games

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:01:38 GMT, ezekielk@qwickconnect.net (Chief
Thracian) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:36:36 -0400, Patriot Games
><Patriot@America.Com> wrote:
>>Because you LIVE there.
>Boy are you a stupid shit. I subscribe to a news service that provides
>the following three servers:
>nyc.newsgroups-download.com
>phoenix.newsgroups-download.com
>amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com
>See for yourself; their web page is:
>http://www.newsgroups-download.com/
>The page listing those 3 servers is here (at page end):
>http://www.newsgroups-download.com/news-support.asp

On the bottom of that page: "Newsgroups-Download.com is a "reseller"
of usenet newsgroup access. This company does not own or operate
usenet servers."

Oops!

Beginning in Amsterdam this is how your message got here: Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, Ponta Delgada (Portugal), Ibiza (Spain), Rhodes (Greece).

>You are so caught up w/stereotypes, that you insist I live in the
>Netherlands. Wish I did!

You DON'T live in America, which is all that matters AS I EXPOSE YOU.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 30 2008 1:18 pm
From: Patriot Games

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:03:25 -0700 (PDT), alohacyberian
<alohacyberian@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 24, 11:24 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:01:02 GMT, chief_thrac...@yahoo.com (Chief
>> Thracian) wrote:
>> >On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:32:43 -0400, Patriot Games
>> ><Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> >>Yet you FAILED to CITE any...
>> >Do your own googling
>> Translation: YOU were CAUGHT LYING.
>> >>I see. They hide yet you magically know they exist?
>> >There is such a thing as anonymous surveys.
>> Yet you FAILED to CITE any...
>> >>Yes, they NEVER rebelled. They marched.
>> >You gotta be kidding. Watts riots? Long hot summer (1967)? Etc.
>> The Civil Right Act was passed in 1964. The Watts riots were local
>> meaningless bullshit.
>> >>I stomped and boot-beat a few fags but I've never shot one. I bet
>> >>that'll be fun!
>> >No doubt in your gestapo uniform!
>> Down here in South Florida that type of attire is just too hot.
>> >>Where is that "rude awakening...?"
>> >When you least expect it.
>> Translation: It'll NEVER happen.
>> >You are a subliterate goon, typical ugly
>> >Amerikan. No wonder this country sucks so bad.
>> Then take your shitstained ass and cock-filled mouth somewhere else.
>> Ain't NOBODY stopping you.
>Do you talk that way to Sharon?

You're embarrassing yourself in public again, Slope.

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

No comments: