http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* overdraft - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
* Purchase All Available US Autos - 21 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* How to: Live on $12,000 a Year - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5093baecae696c12?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: overdraft
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:30 am
From: phil scott
On Dec 15, 10:49 pm, tmcl...@searchmachine.com wrote:
> On Dec 11, 10:24 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ive been hosed by several major banks on such scams...
>
> > I need an account to cash my clients checks..
> > but have no
>
> > credit, or debit card on the account and no checks. I buy money
> > orders when I need to.
>
> > they try real hard to get me to sign up for a credit card or
> > checks...these over draft charges of 35 dollars are a pure rip off,
> > especially on a 5 dollar check... they set up the deposit timing,
> > holds and the order of processing your checks so that it maxes the
> > number that will bounce.
>
> > that was a news story a few years ago.
>
> Good god. How is not releasing funds immediately a "scam"?
That aspect is NOT a scam...the scam comes in when they HOLD a
deposit, a deposit that they USUALLY clear instantly.. they hold it,
then WAIT until you have a batch of checks coming in, THEN they pick
the BIGGEST of that batch and run it through, so that the rest of the
small ones will bounce. THEN they deposit that lil ol deposit, a
deposit they usually credit right away...a batch of business checks
from known customers. HOLDING checks until they clear is
generally only done with larger checks, unknown or out of state
accounts as a rule. but they CHANGE the rules on occasion, such as
when the glorious bank is low on money ...in order to collect a net 19
billion dollars in over draft charges (national estimate last year or
whatever).... this is criminal FRAUD... its not news, its not the
first time US banks have been involved in such fraudulent
practices. There are books and news articles available on the
subject, some have posted links.
Phil scott
>Get a
> credit card and use that for all purchases and no more overdrafts. If
> you have a problem with people giving you bad checks, cash all checks
> at the issuing bank, and again, no more overdrafts. Buying a money
> order when you could just use a check or a credit card? You're
> kidding, right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 11:28 am
From: tmclone@searchmachine.com
On Dec 16, 9:18 am, Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
<samh...@sonic.net> wrote:
> tmcl...@searchmachine.com wrote:
> > you have a problem with people giving you bad checks, cash all checks
> > at the issuing bank, and again, no more overdrafts. Buying a money
> > order when you could just use a check or a credit card? You're
> > kidding, right?
>
> I don't know where you live, but sad to say, many banks in my community
> will not cash a check if you don't have an account at that bank.
> Ridiculous (except for the fact that maybe the checks could be excellent
> forgeries) but true.
Umm, they HAVE to, if it's drawn on their bank and you have photo ID.
If it's not drawn on their bank, then they can refuse, but again, not
if it's "their" check.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 11:33 am
From: tmclone@searchmachine.com
On Dec 16, 11:58 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com>
wrote:
> Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>
> > tmcl...@searchmachine.com wrote:
>
> >> you have a problem with people giving you bad checks, cash all checks
> >> at the issuing bank, and again, no more overdrafts. Buying a money
> >> order when you could just use a check or a credit card? You're
> >> kidding, right?
>
> > I don't know where you live, but sad to say, many banks in my
> > community will not cash a check if you don't have an account at that
> > bank. Ridiculous (except for the fact that maybe the checks could be
> > excellent forgeries) but true.
>
> I've never known a bank to cash a check without an account - even when
> the check is drawn from their bank.
Again, THEY HAVE TO, assuming you have proper ID. To refuse is
considered "unlawful dishonor" and is illegal. I worked for a bank for
10 years writing policies and procedures manuals. I am very familiar
with the regs.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Purchase All Available US Autos
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:33 am
From: never@millions.com
On 16 Dec 2008 15:07:35 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>In news:j5gfk4p302b2nq7gmgs4ae5v76rho2f8i1@4ax.com edward ohare
><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:19:58 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Short list:
>>>>
>>>>1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>
>>>There are no such people any more.
>>
>>
>> Only because dummies in America have proven to be suckers for
>> Republicans yelling "tax cut".
>
>Are you suggesting that it's OK for the government to spend whatever it
>likes, with the only caveat that they increase taxes to cover the
>spending?
>
>How about reducing spending to match the income?
Read up on the two listed below. I took this material from Wikipedia
to give you a bit of a head start. For many decades, these two fellows
have had a greater impact on US economic programs than problably any
others so disciplined in economics. One uote you might take note of is
found within the Keynes article: "He advocated interventionist
government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and
monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic
recessions, depressions and booms."
Your suggestion of reducing spending to match income, though
practical, does not lend itself well to the current economic babblings
of today. Why? It's too practical, does not lend itself well to
variations in taxing, the globla economy influenced by multi-national
corporate machinations. There will always be some folks, few though
they are, who live to accumulate great sums of money at the workers
and taxpayers expense.
We are living in an age of distractions that blind us from the reality
of reducing spending to match our income. Of course there will ever be
the "slight-of-hand" artist who can lift your money, be it from your
savings and investments or straightout of your paycheck, without so
much as a breezy "it's gone" feeling.
Economist John Keynes
June 5, 1883 – April 21, 1946) was a British economist whose ideas,
called Keynesian economics, have had a major impact on modern economic
and political theory as well as on many governments' fiscal policies.
. He is one of the fathers of modern theoretical macroeconomics and
considered by some to be the most influential economist of the 20th
century.[1][2][3]
John Kenneth Galbraith
John Kenneth Galbraith, OC (October 15, 1908–April 29, 2006) was a
Canadian-American economist. He was a Keynesian and an
institutionalist, a leading proponent of 20th-century American
liberalism and progressivism. His books on economic topics were
bestsellers in the 1950s and the 1960s.
Galbraith was a prolific author who produced four dozen books and over
a thousand articles on various subjects. Among his most famous works
was a popular trilogy on economics, American Capitalism (1952), The
Affluent Society (1958), and The New Industrial State (1967). He
taught at Harvard University for many years. Galbraith was active in
politics, serving in the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson; and among
other roles served as United States Ambassador to India under Kennedy
== 2 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:40 am
From: Bert Hyman
In news:GhR1l.9125$iY3.5691@newsfe14.iad clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, the last thing I want is the government providing services.
>> The government is very inefficient at providing services. We need
>> LESS government, not more. -Dave
>
> Agreed. We need private roads, a private military, private fire
> protection, private police forces, private courts and privately run
> airports. Having the EPA, FDA, FBI, OSHA and the Consumer Product
> Safety Commission is such a waste of tax dollars.
Providing military, police and courts are proper functions of
governments, which are established to secure the rights of the citizens.
You're absolutely right about the EPA, FDA, OSHA and CPSC.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
== 3 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:53 am
From: "Dave"
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:maR1l.8269$W06.2849@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Dave wrote:
>>> cause the differences in reliability and longevity. A start to
>>> addressing this issue would be for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to give 10
>>> year power train/5 year bumper to bumper warranties.
>>
>> GM and Chrysler won't last 10 WEEKS, let alone 10 years. -Dave
>
> Chapter 11 bankruptcy doesn't mean going out of business.
YES IT DOES!!! According to the auto execs., Chapter 11 will lead to
Chapter 7 Liquidation. They are right on that. But there's no avoiding
Chapter 11, and thus there is no avoiding Chapter 7, either.
> It may be the best solution for them.
There are two solutions.
Chapter 11, which equals Chapter 7, which equals GM and Chrysler cease to
exist OR
Chapter 7, which equals GM and Chrysler cease to exist
There is no third option.
>What's the down side other than pride? Of course that assumes that the
>bullcrap line they've been feeding naive people about the UAW contracts
>being their core problem would be exposed because those contracts would be
>ended by a bankruptcy.
If the contracts are ended by a bankruptcy, there is a 99% chance that GM
and Chrysler will cease to exist. If the contracts are NOT ended by a
bankruptcy, there is a 100% chance that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist.
NOTE that the auto execs. are strongly opposed to any bankruptcy. Without
it, GM and Chrysler will cease to exist.
Thus, logically speaking, GM and Chrysler will cease to exist. There is no
way to avoid it. -Dave
== 4 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:54 am
From: "Dave"
> Agreed. We need private roads, a private military, private fire
> protection, private police forces, private courts and privately run
> airports. Having the EPA, FDA, FBI, OSHA and the Consumer Product
> Safety Commission is such a waste of tax dollars.
>
> The first thing I'd do as a state governor would be do do away with all
> stop signs & stop lights. It's a well known fact that people &
> businesses will behave rationally, if only left alone.
Hey, You've got my vote. -Dave
== 5 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:19 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Bert Hyman wrote:
> In news:j5gfk4p302b2nq7gmgs4ae5v76rho2f8i1@4ax.com edward ohare
> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:19:58 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Short list:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>
>>> There are no such people any more.
>>
>>
>> Only because dummies in America have proven to be suckers for
>> Republicans yelling "tax cut".
>
> Are you suggesting that it's OK for the government to spend whatever
> it likes, with the only caveat that they increase taxes to cover the
> spending?
>
> How about reducing spending to match the income?
Most of the voters prefer the other alternative.
== 6 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:21 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-16, edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2008 15:07:35 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:j5gfk4p302b2nq7gmgs4ae5v76rho2f8i1@4ax.com edward ohare
>>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:19:58 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Short list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no such people any more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only because dummies in America have proven to be suckers for
>>>> Republicans yelling "tax cut".
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that it's OK for the government to spend
>>> whatever it likes, with the only caveat that they increase taxes to
>>> cover the spending?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>> How about reducing spending to match the income?
>>
>> Depends on whether you want the services spending is paying for.
>> People in CA and FL are now finding that maybe they wanted those
>> services. But after they're cut is not the time to make the
>> decision.
>
> Um, local areas if they want some sort of socialized service should
> deal with that themselves. Powerful central governments lead to ruin.
How odd that the US is nothing even remotely resembling anything like
ruin and that so many of those places that have been stupid enough to
try just local services have ended up so hopeless economically.
== 7 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:22 am
From: "Simon Jones"
Dave wrote:
>>> How about reducing spending to match the income?
>>
>> Depends on whether you want the services spending is paying for.
> Nope, the last thing I want is the government providing services. The government is very inefficient at providing
> services. We need LESS government, not more.
Its that stupid mentality that produced the great depression.
== 8 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:24 am
From: Bert Hyman
In news:6qq9phFdt9rgU1@mid.individual.net "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:j5gfk4p302b2nq7gmgs4ae5v76rho2f8i1@4ax.com edward ohare
>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:19:58 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Short list:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Elect people who don't spend money we don't have
>>>>
>>>> There are no such people any more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Only because dummies in America have proven to be suckers for
>>> Republicans yelling "tax cut".
>>
>> Are you suggesting that it's OK for the government to spend whatever
>> it likes, with the only caveat that they increase taxes to cover the
>> spending?
>>
>> How about reducing spending to match the income?
>
> Most of the voters prefer the other alternative.
You know, we used to have a constitutional republic and a government of
limited and enumerated powers.
I didn't really expect to see it go down so quickly.
Oh well.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
== 9 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:25 am
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> That problem goes beyond the union contracts. It's directly related to
> the profit margins. GM can't sell a comparable vehicle for more than
> what Toyota charges, no matter what the underlying costs are. Prices
> aren't set by adding up production costs and parts costs and then adding
> the manufacturer profit. Getting rid of the union contracts may help
> fix the disparity in margins, but it won't fix the design issues that
> cause the differences in reliability and longevity. A start to
> addressing this issue would be for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to give 10
> year power train/5 year bumper to bumper warranties.
The union contracts drive design and material choices because of the
various work rules and the attempt to make up labor costs in part costs.
== 10 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:27 am
From: Bert Hyman
In news:f0ifk4936m70rbj4a5htok365e7jn79fkt@4ax.com edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2008 15:07:35 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>How about reducing spending to match the income?
>
> Depends on whether you want the services spending is paying for.
People want lots of things.
That doesn't mean that the government should provide them.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
== 11 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:27 am
From: Bert Hyman
In news:6qq9v7Fe1gl2U1@mid.individual.net "Simon Jones" <sj@hsed.com>
wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>>>> How about reducing spending to match the income?
>>>
>>> Depends on whether you want the services spending is paying for.
>
>> Nope, the last thing I want is the government providing services.
>> The government is very inefficient at providing services. We need
>> LESS government, not more.
>
> Its that stupid mentality that produced the great depression.
Oh great. More revisionist history.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
== 12 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:28 am
From: Cindy Hamilton
On Dec 15, 4:33 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:12 pm, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
> > Who cares about styling? A car is a tool to move me and my stuff from
> > point A to point B.
>
> > Why should I care what will be driving in parades in 20 years? I'm
> > driving
> > the car now.
>
> > Frankly, if my 1984 Honda Civic hatchback had air conditioning, I
> > probably would still
> > be driving it. You could slide a 4x8 sheet of plywood in the back.
> > Admittedly, it hung
> > out, but it was a workable drive home from the lumber yard.
>
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> I do... I also care about performance and handling, as to my mind
> those are more important safety features than any airbags or bumpers.
>
> Now it is possible to build a reasonably economical car that is also
> attractive to look at and performs well; it just isn't available from
> the Big Three (or at least other offerings are more appealing, for the
> price.)
>
> nate
Exactly. I'm not completely indifferent to styling (more on that
later), but
a long list of factors come into play first.
I'm driving a 2003 Toyota Matrix now, and frankly I don't think it's
very good looking.
I could have got the Pontiac Vibe, but it's styling was slightly more
muscular
and I rejected it on those grounds. So, I do think about styling,
after all.
The Matrix is excellent on utility; I've been able to put an amazing
variety of
shrubs and stuff in it. It's easy to get groceries into and out of,
which is the
thing I do the most with it (besides commute 5 miles to work). I wish
it got just
a little better gas mileage. It's not bad, and it's hard to complain
when I drive
under 9000 miles per year.
Well, when I buy a new car in 2013, the whole market will probably be
different.
Cindy Hamilton
== 13 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:29 am
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
> I wish that was true. I'm a conservative Republican who voted for Obama. I
> couldn't trust McCain, as he PERFECTLY represents the current batch of
> crooks calling themselves Republican while being war-mongering,
> tax-and-spend Democrats (ie liberals).
Republican and democrat are false differences. There is the rulers and
the ruled just like always. There are just ways to divert people's
energies so they fail to see it. Nothing should make it clearer than
seeing neo-cons cheering one of their own by foreign policy, H. Clinton,
being put into a foreign policy role.
== 14 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:39 am
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, the last thing I want is the government providing services. The
>> government is very inefficient at providing services. We need LESS
>> government, not more. -Dave
>
>
>
> Agreed. We need private roads, a private military, private fire
> protection, private police forces, private courts and privately run
> airports. Having the EPA, FDA, FBI, OSHA and the Consumer Product
> Safety Commission is such a waste of tax dollars.
You are trying to be absurd, but in reality that is the truth.
Private roads wouldnt crumble in the first winter.
If the government couldn't make slaves of soliders it couldn't wage its
very costly wars of folly.
Private fire protection would actually protect people's homes instead of
letting them burn and having homeowners arrested for defending their
property. Private police forces wouldn't have the power to fleece people
with a government issued license. Private courts would mean competition
instead of the courts being biased towards government, since they are
the government's courts. Airports that are privately owned wouldn't be
able to force people out of their homes to expand. (don't confuse
private business with the crony nonsense that occurs when someone like
Daley leases an airport, as that is about as free market as the soviet
union) EPA, FDA, OSHA, et al really do not protect us one bit. Their job
is to do the bidding of those companies that purchase government
interventions in the market. Where company A decides that we need a new
safety reg because it can comply while it will be a huge burden to their
competition, company B. They just make the right contributions and soon
a government regulatory body is making an intervention into the market
that helps them.
If you don't understand the overwhelming incompetence and criminality of
the FBI, there's no hope. Remember, it's the FBI that *ALLOWED* the 1993
WTC bombings to go forward.
> The first thing I'd do as a state governor would be do do away with all
> stop signs & stop lights. It's a well known fact that people &
> businesses will behave rationally, if only left alone.
Chaos is not the absence of the heavy hand of government.
== 15 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:43 am
From: Rudy Canoza
lorad wrote:
> On Dec 13, 7:20 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Asian auto-maker propaganda [snipped]
>
> [snip economics-illiterate twaddle]
No, I'm not buying an "American" car, if that means GM, Ford or
Chrysler. They're just crap.
An prospering economy does not depend on manufacturing.
== 16 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:44 am
From: "Dave"
> Its that stupid mentality that produced the great depression.
Oh, and I guess you think the stock market crash, the bank failures and OH
YEAH, the drought had nothing to do with the great depression? -Dave
== 17 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:50 am
From: "Dave"
>Exactly. I'm not completely indifferent to styling (more on that
>later), but
>a long list of factors come into play first.
>I'm driving a 2003 Toyota Matrix now, and frankly I don't think it's
>very good looking.
Has any Toyota Corolla ever been good looking? I didn't think they could
possibly make it uglier, until they released a hatchback version, calling it
the "Matrix".
>I could have got the Pontiac Vibe, but it's styling was slightly more
>muscular
That is GM's attempt to disguise the fact that the Vibe is a Matrix. Hardly
anybody is fooled.
>Well, when I buy a new car in 2013, the whole market will probably be
>different.
>Cindy Hamilton
In 2013, they'll probably still be selling a Toyota Corolla hatchback
(Matrix) so you should be able to buy one of those again. In 2013, you
won't be able to buy a Pontiac Vibe, or any other Pontiac, or any other GM
product, for that matter. Not that you'd want to. -Dave
== 18 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 10:54 am
From: "Dave"
>
> Republican and democrat are false differences.
That's always been true, to some degree. But there USED TO BE Republicans
who were somewhat responsible. No more.
> There is the rulers and
> the ruled just like always.
And now they don't even pretend to represent us. Note how they want to
appoint a car CZAR, now. A word that means emperor or king.
>There are just ways to divert people's
> energies so they fail to see it. Nothing should make it clearer than
> seeing neo-cons cheering one of their own by foreign policy, H. Clinton,
> being put into a foreign policy role.
Yeah, I heard of Billary being appointed to Secretary of State, and all I
could think is...when will we have World War 3....2009? or 2010? -Dave
== 19 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 11:04 am
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:50:49 -0500, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>
>In 2013, they'll probably still be selling a Toyota Corolla hatchback
>(Matrix) so you should be able to buy one of those again. In 2013, you
>won't be able to buy a Pontiac Vibe, or any other Pontiac, or any other GM
>product, for that matter. Not that you'd want to. -Dave
hehe. Ain't you so sure of yourself.
If you think GM and Chevy are going away, you're mistaken.
Despite your fantasies, GM sells as many vehicles as Toyota worldwide.
GM is too big to fail. Heard that before?
Don't let hate cloud your judgement.
--Vic
== 20 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 11:09 am
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>>>> How about reducing spending to match the income?
>>>
>>> Depends on whether you want the services spending is paying for.
>
>> Nope, the last thing I want is the government providing services. The government is very inefficient at providing
>> services. We need LESS government, not more.
>
> Its that stupid mentality that produced the great depression.
The mentality that produced the great depression was a loose monetary
policy by the federal reserve. When the bubble burst the government
increased its inteventions into the market*. The end result was a long
deep depression.
*Contrary to the government school version of history, Hoover was an
interventionist just like Bush. FDR then did intervention on steroids
which resulted in a longer and deeper depression.
== 21 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 11:11 am
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>> Its that stupid mentality that produced the great depression.
>
> Oh, and I guess you think the stock market crash, the bank failures and OH
> YEAH, the drought had nothing to do with the great depression? -Dave
stock market crash and bank failures were due to federal reserve
monetary policy just like today's. The Fed blows a bubble and then it
bursts. That's the business cycle. That's what central banking does
best besides inflate.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to: Live on $12,000 a Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5093baecae696c12?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 9:39 am
From: tweeny90655@mypacks.net
On Dec 13, 2:43 am, Salford1 <vectisp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Makes sense.....Given the current climate!
>
> http://www.osawatch.com/2007/02/can_you_live_on.html
This is all nickel and dime stuff. The bit about owning more clothes
and washing less frequently is a joke. Doesn't it amount to the same
thing - doing one load a week or two loads every two weeks? Now, if
he'd said "wear the same clothes and never wash em" then I can see a
savings. But who wants to live that way?
The only folks I know who can get by on 12 thou a year are an elderly
couple who live in cheap paidup housing in the sticks, don't own a
car, never eat out, are uninsured and def. don't have the frills.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment