Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 9 topics

Tuesday, October 14, 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: Benefits of frugality?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9afc6b52c0d2d5fb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 13 2008 11:18 pm
From: SoCalMike

timeOday wrote:

> * Living beneath your means gives you a cushion to absorb temporary
> shocks in gas and food prices.
>
> more?

i can easily take more time off work, unpaid and do stuff id rather do.
let other people that need the money have the hours. no biggie. theyre
there for me if i need them.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Stock Market Explained…
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/561a86fdbc8a0299?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 1:00 am
From: tg

Once upon a time in a village, a man appeared and announced to the
villagers that he would buy monkeys for £10 each. The villagers,
seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest,
and started catching them.

The man bought thousands at £10 and as supply started to diminish, the
villagers stopped their effort. He then announced that he would now
buy at £20. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started
catching monkeys again.

Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back
to their farms. The offer increased to £25 each and the supply of
monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey,
let alone catch it!

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at £50. However, since
he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy
on behalf of him.

In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers, "Look at
all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has collected. I will
sell them to you at £35 and when the man returns from the city, you
can sell them to him for £50 each."

The villagers hurried round with their savings and bought all the
monkeys.

Then they never saw the man nor his assistant again, only bloody
monkeys everywhere!

Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/10/the-stock-market-explained/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 1:13 am
From: abelard

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:00:52 -0700 (PDT), tg
<D2Zabcdef@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time in a village, a man appeared and announced to the
>villagers that he would buy monkeys for £10 each. The villagers,
>seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest,
>and started catching them.
>
>The man bought thousands at £10 and as supply started to diminish, the
>villagers stopped their effort. He then announced that he would now
>buy at £20. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started
>catching monkeys again.
>
>Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back
>to their farms. The offer increased to £25 each and the supply of
>monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey,
>let alone catch it!
>
>The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at £50. However, since
>he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy
>on behalf of him.
>
>In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers, "Look at
>all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has collected. I will
>sell them to you at £35 and when the man returns from the city, you
>can sell them to him for £50 each."
>
>The villagers hurried round with their savings and bought all the
>monkeys.
>
>Then they never saw the man nor his assistant again, only bloody
>monkeys everywhere!
>
>Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works.
>
>http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/10/the-stock-market-explained/

looks like another dumb bollix n pricks socialist post....

what is the meaning of this idiot's tale/tail?

is it to advertise plentiful meat?
or is
it to ask what the fool and his assistant achieved with all
their unproductive efforts....a pile of paper perhaps....

and now how are they going to spend the paper?
buy meat at 20,000,000,000,000,000 zimbabwean socialist dollars
an ounce?

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hussein Obama's First 10 Executive Orders
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/eef1f93b8617a8e7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 1:19 am
From: wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)

In article <48f3a00d$0$23050$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
"ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:

> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.

You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
sessions, right?

-- wds

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 2:10 am
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net

In <gd1km2$5pl$1@panix1.panix.com>, on 10/14/2008
at 04:19 AM, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) said:

>In article <48f3a00d$0$23050$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>"ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:

>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.

>You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will still
>be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special sessions,
>right?

You're talking about power. It has nothing to do with leadership.

>-- wds

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 4:42 am
From: jdoe

On 14 Oct 2008 04:19:14 -0400, wdstarr@panix.com (William December
Starr) wrote:

>In article <48f3a00d$0$23050$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>"ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:
>
>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>
>You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
>still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
>sessions, right?
>
>-- wds
but pelosi can and she has stated that she intends to do what was
posted, try getting a clue

__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 7:09 am
From: "ChairMan"

In news:gd1km2$5pl$1@panix1.panix.com,
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>spewed forth:
> In article <48f3a00d$0$23050$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:
>
>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>
> You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
> still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
> sessions, right?
>
> -- wds

Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
Did you even read the article?

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 7:11 am
From: "ChairMan"

In news:RlZIk.889$Rx2.841@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,
TruthTeller@nospam.net <TruthTeller@nospam.net>spewed forth:
> In <gd1km2$5pl$1@panix1.panix.com>, on 10/14/2008
> at 04:19 AM, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) said:
>
>
>
>> In article <48f3a00d$0$23050$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>> "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:
>
>>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>
>> You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
>> still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
>> sessions, right?
>
> You're talking about power. It has nothing to do with leadership.
>
>
neither does nobama

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 9:16 am
From: Jeff

ChairMan wrote:
> In news:7jl6f4ldenr79pkva926m7fv4tlva508p3@4ax.com,
> jdoe <jdoe@aol.com>spewed forth:
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:14:42 GMT, aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:18:13 -0400, TheTruth <no404@bellsouth.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hussein Obama's First 10 Executive Orders
>>>>>
>>>>> Quotes from BarrackObama.com
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama enacts stronger "federal hate crimes legislation" to
>>>>> "reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal
>>>>> Section."
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama creates "a fund to help people refinance their mortgages
>>>>> and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners."
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama, following through on his pledge to "meet with the leaders
>>>>> of
>>>>> all nations, friend and foe," signs a non-agression pact with the
>>>>> Hitler
>>>>> of Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama doubles foreign aid to $50 billion to cut "poverty around
>>>>> the
>>>>> world in half by 2015."
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama removes our troops from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum
>>>>> filled by Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama enacts socialized medicine, destroying small businesses
>>>>> with
>>>>> taxes to pay for illegal alien healthcare.
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama enacts amnesty for illegal aliens.
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama enacts legislation demanding carbon friendly cars,
>>>>> hammering the final nail in the coffin of the US car industry.
>>>>>
>>>>> . Barack Obama enact laws to reinforce affirmative action by
>>>>> funneling money to "women and minority-owned businesses."
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama repeals the Bush tax cuts.
>>>>>
>>>>> . Obama enacts the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to entrench
>>>>> the
>>>>> power of the homosexual lobby.
>>>> Whaaaaaaaata jigaboo!
>>>>
>>>> ted
>>> There are maybe 2 things on that list POTUS has any control over. The
>>> rest are controlled by Congress.
>> barrack hussein obama and a compliant congress, one that is leftist
>> controlled, will almost certainly be able to do irreparable damage
>
>
> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special session
> immediately after the election in hopes of passing legislation to spend
> almost $150 billion in extended benefits.

You realize that that 150B is a small fraction of the 5T in debt that
your fearless leader George W Bush and the Republican Congress ran up
along with the largest increase in government in history.

Almost all of that "stimulus" is aimed at local and state governments
who have been widely suffering. Not an insignificant amount but what
happens if we fail to stop the failure of local governments to provide
necessary services? I live in a red state and I can tell you that the
state and many red run local governments are in serious trouble. This is
a serious issue that will once again be ignored by George W Bush until
it reaches catastrophe proportions. Past is prologue. Whether I will
support that, I don't know, there is no bill.

Now for the bait, so we can see your true colors. What about these
terrorists associations that are being made against Obama? What about
the use of Hussein instead of his real first name?

Perhaps it's time to talk about which candidate is really "palling"
around with known anti government terrorists.

Jeff

>
> http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3719193/
>
>

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 2:40 pm
From: wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)

In article <48f4a8fc$0$9266$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
"ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:

>>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>>
>> You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
>> still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
>> sessions, right?
>
> Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
> Did you even read the article?

Yup. I also read the part where you said "nobama and pelosi have
already met and plan to call a special session immediately after the
election".

-- wds

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 4:07 pm
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net

In <gd33js$8kl$1@panix2.panix.com>, on 10/14/2008
at 05:40 PM, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) said:

>In article <48f4a8fc$0$9266$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>"ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:

>>>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>>>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>>>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>>>
>>> You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
>>> still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
>>> sessions, right?
>>
>> Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
>> Did you even read the article?

>Yup. I also read the part where you said "nobama and pelosi have already
>met and plan to call a special session immediately after the election".

Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with correcting
the right wing mess ASAP!

>-- wds

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Math on the bailout doesn't add up...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3213ff522966e10e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 2:19 am
From: Grizzly

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:50:10 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>
>> On 14 Oct 2008 04:39:35 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:34:54 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:09:41 GMT, habshi@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If he had not voted against investigating Fannie May and
>>>>> Freddie Mac two years ago , when McCain tried to get it done, these
>>>>> trillions of dollars would not have been taken by the crooks. He doesnt
>>>>> deserve to be elected.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/bruce-
>>> anderson-yes-the-tories-should-blame-brown-959312.htmlIn
>>>>> In the late 1990s, a Democrat-controlled Congress virtually
>>>>> compelled US banks to advance mortgages irrespective of the applicants'
>>>>> financial status. Racial factors played a role in this; a large
>>>>> percentage of sub-prime borrowers were Black or Hispanic. But
>>>>> everything was underpinned by economic optimism. The assumption was
>>>>> that the economy would just keep on growing, so that even the poorest
>>>>> families could have their stake in the American dream. Greed did kick
>>>>> in. Higher lending did boost bankers' incomes, otherwise they might
>>>>> have protested more about being locked in to imprudent practices, and
>>>>> there was a further factor. Over the years, banks had come to assume
>>>>> that any inter-bank transaction was gold-plated: that all bank assets
>>>>> were secure. That should not have applied to the market in sub-prime lo
>>>> Are you sure that the Democrats controlled the Congress in the late
>>>> 1990's? For some reason, I was thinking that Newt Gingrich (R) was the
>>>> Speaker of the House and Trent Lott (R) was Senate Majority Leader.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the Democrat controlled Congress that you are talking about?
>>> Yeah... That's the one...
>> That's what I was thinking.
>
> We all know that a bare majority is insufficient to over ride a veto or
> filibuster. Even relatively simple issues can fail due to attendance and
> regional issues which are not judged upon by party lines.
>
> Deadlocks require a supermajority or, as we've seen during the Bush
> Administration, judicial application of terror to push through legislation.
>
> Even if the majority party had a bare majority that alone doesn't
> guarantee that the minority party can't submarine many bills.
>
Some of the deregulation bills pushed through under the Gincrich
Congress had an overwhelming majority backing them, most of the
legislation pushed through then was not not able to be defeated by a
veto from the president as they would simply have over ridden him..The
fact is prior to the legislation being passed by the Republican
majority, there was fairly tight regulation that they were clamoring to
get rid of..they succeeded, and the rest as we know it has now come home
to roost..

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 2:38 am
From: Grizzly

RM V2.0 wrote:
>> It is a case by case basis that should recognize that there was a bubble
>> caused by the Wall Street Weasels and encouraged by the "We don't want no
>> stinkin' regulation" Republican government.
>
> the Democrats forced the bad loans, Repugs warned against it.
>> However:
>>
>> You will not convince me that a person that put no money down on a
>> subprime loan is supposed to be "saved" by a bailout. The person will be
>> "inconvenienced" if forced to move to other accommodations. But the
>> person has been minimally harmed financially. This assumes a rewrite of
>> the bankruptcy code and the tax code to prevent enslavement of the home
>> buyers who in most cases were acting in goof faith.
> Taxpayers shouldnt be forced to pay for individuals stupidity.
>
>
And yet that is exactly what has been done in baling out Wall street and
the Bankers..Commercial paper is still locked up as far as I can tell,
and jobs are being lost due to this..as to the "inconvenience" of losing
one's home, go ahead and put yourself in their shoes for awhile and see
how you like it. There was quite a bit of predatory lending going on in
the Realty market. There still is in the consumer credit area..low
teaser rates transforming to usury over time.. When the prime rate is
dropped to 1 1/2 percent and credit card companies are allowed to charge
interest of up to 30% per year, that is loan sharking sans the thugs
that will come along and break your legs..some people failed to have an
attorney read the fine print.. other's didn't realize they would not be
able to refinance when that balloon mortgage reached maturity..I feel
sorrier for them than I do for that banker that jumped ship with a 41
million dollar golden parachute for three weeks work..He should be
hanging from a lamp post somewhere, not testifying in front of
congress..Worldwide there is a great dollar giveaway sale going on
compliments of the federal reserve to "restore confidence" as if running
the printing presses overtime will improve the value of our
currency..look at this for what it really is, the deliberate crashing of
our economy and money system and the largest transfer of wealth from the
bottom to the top in history..

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 5:37 am
From: Jim

all things of this earth shall fade and pass. there is one
exception and that is the love for you God Himself has given
through the work of His Son. this love is always steady always
constant and always there for each and everyone of us.

receive the greatest wealth, receive the everlasting wealth of
salvation, receive the free gift of the Father.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 10:31 am
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:19:44 +0000, Grizzly wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:50:10 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 Oct 2008 04:39:35 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:34:54 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:09:41 GMT, habshi@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If he had not voted against investigating Fannie May and
>>>>>> Freddie Mac two years ago , when McCain tried to get it done, these
>>>>>> trillions of dollars would not have been taken by the crooks. He
>>>>>> doesnt deserve to be elected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/bruce-
>>>> anderson-yes-the-tories-should-blame-brown-959312.htmlIn
>>>>>> In the late 1990s, a Democrat-controlled Congress virtually
>>>>>> compelled US banks to advance mortgages irrespective of the
>>>>>> applicants' financial status. Racial factors played a role in this;
>>>>>> a large percentage of sub-prime borrowers were Black or Hispanic.
>>>>>> But everything was underpinned by economic optimism. The assumption
>>>>>> was that the economy would just keep on growing, so that even the
>>>>>> poorest families could have their stake in the American dream. Greed
>>>>>> did kick in. Higher lending did boost bankers' incomes, otherwise
>>>>>> they might have protested more about being locked in to imprudent
>>>>>> practices, and there was a further factor. Over the years, banks had
>>>>>> come to assume that any inter-bank transaction was gold-plated: that
>>>>>> all bank assets were secure. That should not have applied to the
>>>>>> market in sub-prime lo
>>>>> Are you sure that the Democrats controlled the Congress in the late
>>>>> 1990's? For some reason, I was thinking that Newt Gingrich (R) was
>>>>> the Speaker of the House and Trent Lott (R) was Senate Majority
>>>>> Leader.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the Democrat controlled Congress that you are talking about?
>>>> Yeah... That's the one...
>>> That's what I was thinking.
>>
>> We all know that a bare majority is insufficient to over ride a veto or
>> filibuster. Even relatively simple issues can fail due to attendance
>> and regional issues which are not judged upon by party lines.
>>
>> Deadlocks require a supermajority or, as we've seen during the Bush
>> Administration, judicial application of terror to push through
>> legislation.
>>
>> Even if the majority party had a bare majority that alone doesn't
>> guarantee that the minority party can't submarine many bills.
>>
> Some of the deregulation bills pushed through under the Gincrich Congress
> had an overwhelming majority backing them, most of the legislation pushed
> through then was not not able to be defeated by a veto from the president
> as they would simply have over ridden him..

Use fewer pronouns, "them" and "they" leave too much to the imagination.
It could be argued that "them" are the Republican majority plus a sizable
percentage of Democrats. Many of which saw the handwriting on the wall
and have left Congress since their legislation was passed.

> The fact is prior to the
> legislation being passed by the Republican majority, there was fairly
> tight regulation that they were clamoring to get rid of..they succeeded,
> and the rest as we know it has now come home to roost..

Whew, that was rough to parse out. Try using some white space to
delineate a change of topic.

But yes, the regulations were removed and became part of the problem. I
believe a much greater part was the SEC permitting extreme leverage in the
Banking and investment fields. Now we are suffering de-leveraging and
there's not enough cash in existence to fund the decline of markets.

Until the bubble is squeezed out of this bloated economy recovery will not
occur. Until housing prices stabilize that industry will remain in
shambles. Until jobs are created people won't have the money to buy homes
so the property industry will continue to decline on the average, in my
opinion, for years.

A long depression is a good possibility under current policy where we
might have squeezed the fat out quickly by allowing the gamblers (banks,
mortgage, and investments) to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Allowing the banks and wall street to fail would have been terrible but I
believe it would have been better to get it over with and begin anew.
Certainly the time element would be much shorter, now we're playing wiht
our children's future.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember to use birth control when nailing the underage daughter
of an anti-abortion VP candidate during an election year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 12:51 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:38:01 +0000, Grizzly wrote:

> RM V2.0 wrote:
>>> It is a case by case basis that should recognize that there was a
>>> bubble caused by the Wall Street Weasels and encouraged by the "We
>>> don't want no stinkin' regulation" Republican government.
>>
>> the Democrats forced the bad loans, Repugs warned against it.

The "Community Reinvestment Act", ACORN, and the pressure in late 1990's
from Democrats and the Clinton administration were totally lost and
overwhelmed by the increase in value of the homes of that period. The
homes and businesses in question were in depressed areas. The bulk of
problem loans we see now are not in any way associated with these loans
that were "forced on the banks" in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act --------------
The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies
to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of
the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe
and sound operation. (See full text of Act and current regulations.[5])
To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking
institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into
consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for
mergers or acquisitions
------------------------------------------------------------------
• The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases)
are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San
Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority
regions were impacted by the Community Reinvesment Act ?

>>> However:
>>>
>>> You will not convince me that a person that put no money down on a
>>> subprime loan is supposed to be "saved" by a bailout. The person will
>>> be "inconvenienced" if forced to move to other accommodations. But
>>> the person has been minimally harmed financially. This assumes a
>>> rewrite of the bankruptcy code and the tax code to prevent enslavement
>>> of the home buyers who in most cases were acting in goof faith.

>> Taxpayers shouldnt be forced to pay for individuals stupidity.
>>
>>
> And yet that is exactly what has been done in baling out Wall street and
> the Bankers..Commercial paper is still locked up as far as I can tell,
> and jobs are being lost due to this..as to the "inconvenience" of losing
> one's home, go ahead and put yourself in their shoes for awhile and see
> how you like it.

Your goodie two shoes moonbat crap is noted. The fact is that ion many
cases the people were transported to much better digs then those to which
their contribution to the society had entitled them. They will now be
asked to return to their former lives. It is inconvenient but necessary.

> There was quite a bit of predatory lending going on in
> the Realty market.

I have stated that these bastards would have loaned money to blowup dolls
had they thought they could get away with it. But the only way to hold
them accountable is to stick them with the devalued properties and have
them EAT the losses. The people currently occupying these homes should
walk away. They were sold a pipe dream by the snake oil lenders. They
are INCONVENIENCED but not financially harmed. There are other programs
to address hardship.

> There still is in the consumer credit area..low
> teaser rates transforming to usury over time.. When the prime rate is
> dropped to 1 1/2 percent

Prime isn't 1.5%. That 1.5% is the interbank or discount rate (never can
keep those two straight).

> and credit card companies are allowed to charge
> interest of up to 30% per year, that is loan sharking sans the thugs
> that will come along and break your legs..some people failed to have an
> attorney read the fine print.. other's didn't realize they would not be
> able to refinance when that balloon mortgage reached maturity..I feel
> sorrier for them than I do for that banker that jumped ship with a 41
> million dollar golden parachute for three weeks work..He should be
> hanging from a lamp post somewhere, not testifying in front of
> congress..Worldwide there is a great dollar giveaway sale going on
> compliments of the federal reserve to "restore confidence" as if running
> the printing presses overtime will improve the value of our
> currency..look at this for what it really is, the deliberate crashing of
> our economy and money system and the largest transfer of wealth from the
> bottom to the top in history..

The problem is the revised bankruptcy laws. It used to be that when
things got to be really bad that you declared bankruptcy and walked
away. That is not the case now.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 1:20 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:23:55 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:50:10 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>
>> On 14 Oct 2008 04:39:35 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:34:54 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:09:41 GMT, habshi@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If he had not voted against investigating Fannie May and
>>>>>Freddie Mac two years ago , when McCain tried to get it done, these
>>>>>trillions of dollars would not have been taken by the crooks. He
>>>>>doesnt deserve to be elected.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/
bruce-
>>>anderson-yes-the-tories-should-blame-brown-959312.htmlIn
>>>>>
>>>>> In the late 1990s, a Democrat-controlled Congress virtually
>>>>>compelled US banks to advance mortgages irrespective of the
>>>>>applicants' financial status. Racial factors played a role in this; a
>>>>>large percentage of sub-prime borrowers were Black or Hispanic. But
>>>>>everything was underpinned by economic optimism. The assumption was
>>>>>that the economy would just keep on growing, so that even the poorest
>>>>>families could have their stake in the American dream. Greed did kick
>>>>>in. Higher lending did boost bankers' incomes, otherwise they might
>>>>>have protested more about being locked in to imprudent practices, and
>>>>>there was a further factor. Over the years, banks had come to assume
>>>>>that any inter-bank transaction was gold-plated: that all bank assets
>>>>>were secure. That should not have applied to the market in sub-prime
>>>>>lo
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure that the Democrats controlled the Congress in the late
>>>> 1990's? For some reason, I was thinking that Newt Gingrich (R) was
>>>> the Speaker of the House and Trent Lott (R) was Senate Majority
>>>> Leader.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the Democrat controlled Congress that you are talking about?
>>>
>>>Yeah... That's the one...
>>
>> That's what I was thinking.
>
> We all know that a bare majority is insufficient to over ride a veto or
> filibuster. Even relatively simple issues can fail due to attendance
> and regional issues which are not judged upon by party lines.
>
> Deadlocks require a supermajority or, as we've seen during the Bush
> Administration, judicial application of terror to push through
> legislation.
>
> Even if the majority party had a bare majority that alone doesn't
> guarantee that the minority party can't submarine many bills.

The application of "terror" was done differently in the late 90's. The
general public was convinced by right wing Republican propaganda that
deregulation and government downsizing was the holy grail. The "bully
pulpit" enjoyed by the (P)resident was countered by Ken Starr and
Whitewater, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. At the time the Gramm-Leach-
Blily act was rammed through the Congress, any Democrat standing in the
way of deregulation was going to be road kill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-
Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional
Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving
Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[1]

The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and
in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). On May 6,
1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53
Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[2] On July
20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested
and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a
joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of
241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law
that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and
also "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to
financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e.
protection against exclusionary redlining) [3] [4] The bill then moved to
a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and
House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans
agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community
Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference
committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[3] [5] On
November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the
Senate 90-8 [6] and by the House 362-57.[7] This "veto-proof" legislation
was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12,
1999.[8]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: new hybrid batteries and overcharging
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/d32953a33eed58b1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 5:44 am
From: Tim Forcer

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:52 I wrote:

[cut]

> I am trying not to rely on Hybrio's supposed long-storage life, and to
> carry a spare set of cells at all times.

Wouldn't you know it? Just two days after I wrote that I got caught
out.

On Saturday, I took my camera and flash to a family gathering.
Because I knew the Hybrios in the flash had been there for several
months, and had been used for many dozens of flashes, I took a spare
set too. Sure enough, after ten or twelve flashes, the flash
recycling time became significant. Out with the old, in with the new.
One flash, flash dead - no recharge action at all.

Unfortunately, I hadn't packed my mini digital meter, and there's only
so much swapping of cells one can manage in an effort to find 4
vaguely-usable cells from a set of eight that must include at least
two completely flat cells.

Testing once back home showed one cell of the eight was really poor,
presumably one from the reserve set. Four more were in the
well-discharged area (but not absolutely empty), and three were low.
A "best" set of 4 gave only another dozen manual flashes.

So now I need to add "check all cell voltages in the spare set before
taking it out for use". Plus I'm being more careful about identifying
cells which aren't taking or keeping as much charge as their
set-mates. None of which will bring back the missed opportunities of
Saturday.

I'll carry on using the Hybrios, if only because they do seem to hold
part-charge better than standard NiMH, but I won't buy any more.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Belize, Anyone?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/407a09dbc33b65b0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 8:43 am
From: Derald

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308790381199062

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308788393850595

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308789287213899

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308790933239252

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Take this; It's Good For You
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0255550a4df1fc21?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 8:43 am
From: Derald

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/LeftRight.aspx

==============================================================================
TOPIC: KFC 9.99 bucket
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5651e6f0a42596cd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 9:36 am
From: Seerialmom

On Oct 13, 11:11 pm, SoCalMike <mikein562athotm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> James wrote:
> > How much would the raw chicken cost you at regular supermarket
> > prices? At sale prices? Assume you cook regularly and have all the
> > other stuff necessary for fried chicken so their cost is minor.
>
> whats a bucket consist of? one whole bird? .69 - .99/lb, figure about
> 3lb a bird.

Actually you only get 7 pieces (1 piece of breast, 2 wings, 2 legs, 2
thighs), mashed potatoes/gravy and 4 biscuits. So not quite a full
chicken there. Based on those ingredients it'd be very easy to make
the equivalent for under $9.99 and probably healthier by forgoing the
coating on the chicken.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 11:25 am
From: lisajoe@privacy.net

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT), in misc.consumers.frugal-living
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 13, 11:11 pm, SoCalMike <mikein562athotm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> James wrote:
>> > How much would the raw chicken cost you at regular supermarket
>> > prices? At sale prices? Assume you cook regularly and have all the
>> > other stuff necessary for fried chicken so their cost is minor.
>>
>> whats a bucket consist of? one whole bird? .69 - .99/lb, figure about
>> 3lb a bird.
>
>Actually you only get 7 pieces (1 piece of breast, 2 wings, 2 legs, 2
>thighs), mashed potatoes/gravy and 4 biscuits. So not quite a full
>chicken there. Based on those ingredients it'd be very easy to make
>the equivalent for under $9.99 and probably healthier by forgoing the
>coating on the chicken.

did not know that they use msg, that stuff is toxic for me, will avoid kfc idf
true.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 12:45 pm
From: barbie gee

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, lisajoe@privacy.net wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT), in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 13, 11:11 pm, SoCalMike <mikein562athotm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> James wrote:
>>>> How much would the raw chicken cost you at regular supermarket
>>>> prices? At sale prices? Assume you cook regularly and have all the
>>>> other stuff necessary for fried chicken so their cost is minor.
>>>
>>> whats a bucket consist of? one whole bird? .69 - .99/lb, figure about
>>> 3lb a bird.
>>
>> Actually you only get 7 pieces (1 piece of breast, 2 wings, 2 legs, 2
>> thighs), mashed potatoes/gravy and 4 biscuits. So not quite a full
>> chicken there. Based on those ingredients it'd be very easy to make
>> the equivalent for under $9.99 and probably healthier by forgoing the
>> coating on the chicken.
>
>
> did not know that they use msg, that stuff is toxic for me, will avoid kfc idf
> true.
>

then you must have very little food to select from, on the
fast/prepared/prepackaged side. It's all got msg in it, pretty much, and
MSG isn't always listed as MSG, but is present in a variety of forms.
these all have "free glutamates" in them;
Autolyzed yeast
calcium caseinate
gelatin
glutamate
glutamic acid
hydrolyzed plant protein
hydrolyzed protein
hydrolyzed vegetable protein
natural flavor
protein hydrolysate
sodium caseinate
textured protein
yeast extract
yeast food
yeast nutrient

==============================================================================
TOPIC: LA times features 5 scams to watch out for during a recession.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fc0332e7187c32a7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 1:11 pm
From: ultimauw@gmail.com

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-consumer5-2008oct05,0,5047416.story?page=1

of if that link does not work:

http://consumerist.com/5059417/5-scams-to-watch-out-for-during-a-recession

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 14 2008 2:46 pm
From: "catalpa"

<ultimauw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea7e7bd6-89af-4df4-bcba-e11c331ebf37@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-consumer5-2008oct05,0,5047416.story?page=1
>
> of if that link does not work:
>
> http://consumerist.com/5059417/5-scams-to-watch-out-for-during-a-recession

Doesn't even list the number 1 scam: "I'm from the government and I'm here
to help you".

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

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, October 14, 2008

25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

No comments: