Wednesday, December 24, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 7 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:

* Negro, hispanic crime ripping through America. - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dc68feb795ea956f?hl=en
* What minor frugal change did you make this year? - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2d2a9d8612f0c718?hl=en
* poverty line - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4eaa805a9a816468?hl=en
* Collision insurance - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2850cf9d787416a8?hl=en
* self-employed, the price? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
* Don't they just print more money? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/372a5a8a074f3f89?hl=en
* Companies closing down without telling their employees - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e9ad2a790d1b3e5a?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Negro, hispanic crime ripping through America.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dc68feb795ea956f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:43 am
From: wismel@yahoo.com


http://www.newnation.org/

What wimps be these American who tolerate such outrages.

Death to diversity!

ted


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:01 am
From: BrianNZ


wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.newnation.org/
>
> What wimps be these American who tolerate such outrages.
>
> Death to diversity!
>
> ted


fair call....you certainly aren't mainstream, and you don't do anything
about these 'outrages' so you must be a wimp.....BANG!!


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:10 am
From: .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com


On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 06:01:28 +1300, BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote:

>wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
>> http://www.newnation.org/
>>
>> What wimps be these American who tolerate such outrages.
>>
>> Death to diversity!
>>
>> ted
>
>
>fair call....you certainly aren't mainstream, and you don't do anything
>about these 'outrages' so you must be a wimp.....BANG!!

Please don't feed the trolls.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:34 am
From: BrianNZ


.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 06:01:28 +1300, BrianNZ <brian@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> http://www.newnation.org/
>>>
>>> What wimps be these American who tolerate such outrages.
>>>
>>> Death to diversity!
>>>
>>> ted
>>
>> fair call....you certainly aren't mainstream, and you don't do anything
>> about these 'outrages' so you must be a wimp.....BANG!!
>
> Please don't feed the trolls.
>
>


C'mon, it's 6.30am Christmas morning....peace and goodwill to all (and
all that crap) :)


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:09 am
From: "."


On Dec 24, 9:34�am, The Man From Another Planet <br...@itnz.co.nz>
wrote:

> C'mon, it's 6.30am Christmas morning....peace and goodwill to all (and
> all that crap) �:)

Christmas morning, in the middle of summer in Godzone, and you have
nothing better to do than debate foreign politics that don't affect
you in any way?

Is that *lame*, or what?

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:32 am
From: BrianNZ


. wrote:
> On Dec 24, 9:34�am, The Man From Another Planet <br...@itnz.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> C'mon, it's 6.30am Christmas morning....peace and goodwill to all (and
>> all that crap) �:)
>
> Christmas morning, in the middle of summer in Godzone, and you have
> nothing better to do than debate foreign politics that don't affect
> you in any way?
>
> Is that *lame*, or what?
>


Just another day in paradise....soon I'll be doing more important
things.....the dishes, washing, mop the floors....usual 'day-off' stuff.

I think todays mission is to get the Mitsi truck to the back of the
section and load up a Triumph Herald which has found a new home.

Tomorrow I'm off to Wanganui for the 'Cemetery Circuit' bike racing.
Sean Harris is making a comeback from his IOM crash.......
"> In June last year, Harris cheated death in the Isle of Man Tourist
Trophy race, crashing his 1000cc Suzuki at 230km/h on the final lap on
the 37-mile (60km) circuit.
>
> Race officials and medics who came to his rescue at the time didn't give him a chance and their feelings were echoed by doctors at the hospital.
>
> He broke both arms, both legs, some ribs, his pelvis and lost his front teeth in the smash and was in a medically induced coma for several days."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dailynews/4802138a6404.html


.....and I'll be cheering him on. Rather than ride down (as usual, but
the KTM's off the road until I can afford a service) I've got a driver
to take me in my car and I will be making a booze cruise of it.

I love Christmas when I'm on my own....so much more relaxing!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What minor frugal change did you make this year?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2d2a9d8612f0c718?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:47 am
From: "Daniel T."


On Dec 23, 5:30�pm, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nicik Name wrote:
> > > > "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Isn't there some rule of thumb about how long you should idle
> > > and when you should turn the engine off?
> >
> > From what I understand, it's 10 Seconds. In our state, the left turn
> > signal always goes green before the main light. So if I hit the turn
> > lane and the left turn signal is red, I shut off the engine until
> > after the cross traffic starts going. If I can see the cross traffic
> > light, I will wait until they have a yellow light.
> >
> > This is exactly how Priuses save gas, shut the engine off at lights.
>
> They're electric at low speeds, right? �So you probably aren't using
> any gas in high-traffic areas, right?

Not really. They don't work like the Volt is planed too (for example.)
The battery on a Prius is quite small, so it's not like you can expect
to leave the engine off during a trip to the grocery store, even if
you do keep under the 30-40 MPH cut-off point.

The Volt, on the other hand is planed to be a true electric vehicle.
It will opperate on electricity alone, with a gas generator on-board
for those times when you can't charge it before the batteries die out.


== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:57 am
From: "Daniel T."


"Nicik Name" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> For security reasons NEVER shut down the motor while on a roadway.
> Hope this helps.........

In my state, and I think in most states, it's illegal to shut off the
engine while the car is moving, (though I have been known to do that
on occasion when I'm comming up to a light that I know will be red for
a long time.)

Nicik is right though, there is a safety concern. With the engine off,
you don't have your power breaks or power stearing, and of course you
loose all ability to accelerate.

For example, I will leave my engine running if nobody is behind me.
Just in case someone shows up and forgets to break soon enough, I want
the ability to pull ahead and out of their way so I won't be rear-
ended.

> Lic driver circa 1968......eh what do i know

I'm over 20 years accident free. I tell my kids there are three kinds
of drivers, those who get into accidents and it's usually their fault,
those who get into accidents and it's rarely their fault, and then
there are those who simply don't get into accidents.


== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:01 am
From: "Daniel T."


On Dec 23, 11:19�pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > Isn't there some rule of thumb about how long you should idle and when
> > you should turn the engine off?
>
> In Minneapolis, it's 3 minutes. �Beyond that (5 for heavy diesels)
> it's a violation and you can be ticketed.
>
> Though I'm not sure that anyone has been, in the year the ordinance
> has been in effect. �On slow news days, news crews shoot pictures of
> cops, garbage trucks, etc. violating the ordinance.

I think Dave is talking about a slightly different subject... Ever
notice how UPS drivers turn off the engine as soon as they stop, even
if they are just jumping out and jumping right back in again?


== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:24 am
From: Marsha


Daniel T. wrote:
> I'm over 20 years accident free. I tell my kids there are three kinds
> of drivers, those who get into accidents and it's usually their fault,
> those who get into accidents and it's rarely their fault, and then
> there are those who simply don't get into accidents.

Same here, but there have been some close ones, which would not have
been my fault. Sometimes it's only pure luck if you haven't had an
accident for a while. You just haven't been in the right place at the
right time.

Marsha/Ohio


== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:45 am
From: Dennis


On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:24:42 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:

>Daniel T. wrote:
> > I'm over 20 years accident free. I tell my kids there are three kinds
>> of drivers, those who get into accidents and it's usually their fault,
>> those who get into accidents and it's rarely their fault, and then
>> there are those who simply don't get into accidents.
>
>Same here, but there have been some close ones, which would not have
>been my fault. Sometimes it's only pure luck if you haven't had an
>accident for a while. You just haven't been in the right place at the
>right time.

I'm not sure how it is in your state, but here in Oregon we have what
is termed "proportional neglect". What this means (as my agent
explained it to me) is that, unless you are (legally and properly)
completely stopped somewhere and someone else hits your vehicle, each
driver is assigned some percentage of fault in an accident. The
respective insurance companies pay out based on the percentages
assigned to their client.


Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.


== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:08 am
From: Dave Garland


Daniel T. wrote:

> I think Dave is talking about a slightly different subject... Ever
> notice how UPS drivers turn off the engine as soon as they stop, even
> if they are just jumping out and jumping right back in again?

It does turn out that it doesn't apply if you're "in traffic". I
didn't know that. (I do sometimes turn my engine off if I'm waiting
for a train to pass.) However, it does apply if your aggregate idling
time is more than 3 minutes in an hour, I didn't realize that it
wasn't "per instance". There are various exemptions.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/airquality/AntiIdling_home.asp


== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:59 am
From: Marsha


Dennis wrote:
> I'm not sure how it is in your state, but here in Oregon we have what
> is termed "proportional neglect". What this means (as my agent
> explained it to me) is that, unless you are (legally and properly)
> completely stopped somewhere and someone else hits your vehicle, each
> driver is assigned some percentage of fault in an accident. The
> respective insurance companies pay out based on the percentages
> assigned to their client.
>
>
> Dennis (evil)
> --
> The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
> consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Does that apply to rear-end accidents if both vehicles are moving? That
doesn't seem fair, in most cases.

Marsha/Ohio


== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 11:14 am
From: Dennis


On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:59:38 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:

>Dennis wrote:
>> I'm not sure how it is in your state, but here in Oregon we have what
>> is termed "proportional neglect". What this means (as my agent
>> explained it to me) is that, unless you are (legally and properly)
>> completely stopped somewhere and someone else hits your vehicle, each
>> driver is assigned some percentage of fault in an accident. The
>> respective insurance companies pay out based on the percentages
>> assigned to their client.
>>
>>
>> Dennis (evil)
>> --
>> The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
>> consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
>
>Does that apply to rear-end accidents if both vehicles are moving?

It did in my case -- my car was rear ended when I slowed to make a
left turn into a residential driveway. The guy who hit me was
speeding, drunk, had outstanding warrants and tried to flee when the
police arrived. Nonetheless, I was assigned some percentage of fault
(I forget how much -- it was over 25 years ago -- less than 10% I
think, but still...).

>That doesn't seem fair, in most cases.

Insurers, politicians and lawyers made the rules. What made you think
"fair" had anything to do with it? ;-)


Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: poverty line
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4eaa805a9a816468?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:00 am
From: "JonquilJan"


This varies so much throughout the country.

In some locations, the amount stated can enable the person to qualify for
breaks on subsidized housing, food stamps, tax breaks, etc. In my locality
(the only one where I have personal experience) I qualify for the STAR tax
program - which lowers my school taxes. But I do not qualify for HEAP -
which would help with my winter heating bills.

I could go to the monthly surplus food distribution (I can't stand up long
enough to wait in the lines however) but anyone can do that regardless of
income. I would qualify for subsidized housing - but only if I stopped
working (just barely over the line when I work) - and I wouldn't want to
leave my home anyway.

Some people 'live' quite well when their income is below the 'poverty line'
because they are frugal and make good choices. Others live quite 'poorly'
even when they are well above the 'poverty line' because they make bad
choices and live extravagently.

I don't have a cell phone, only basic cable (less that $9 a month), a used
car, no stereo, no microwave, have the house paid off. Health care through
Medicare. I am almost 70 (less than 2 months) and have been disabled for
over 35 years. Poverty line - I'm close - but not under that line as yet.

JonquilJan

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:52 am
From: Dave Garland


Marsha wrote:

> But the media and politicians like to paint a picture of the poor as
> someone without adequate shelter, not enough food, not much income and
> no medical care.

You're right, that image is not always accurate. It is sometimes, but
not others. Sometimes the poor is a 80-year-old widow living in her
own deteriorating house on social security. Sometimes it's a single
mom with kids who left daddy because he beat them, or is doing time.
Sometimes it's a family with one wage-earner in a minimum-wage job and
medical problems. And yeah, sometimes it's a guy who's allergic to work.

The media and politicians like to reduce their stories to simple black
and white. Because the public's attention span isn't long enough for
anything more complicated. It's gotta fit into a sound bite.

>Someone with cable or satellite TV reception and/or a
> cell phone in addition to a land line does not fit that category.

I'd agree about the TV. But most of the poor who I know that have a
cellphone don't have a landline. If you have bad credit, do you know
what it costs to get a landline installed? You can get a prepaid
cellphone at K-Mart for $20 no questions asked, another $20 will load
it with 100 minutes talk time. You tell me what the local telco will
charge (don't forget to include the taxes, they can double a low-end
bill).

> Most
> truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices.

That's sometimes true. But do you have any evidence do you have for
"most"?

> What we need
> is a major overhaul of the welfare system and immigration.

Along with a major overhaul of developers and sports team owners who
get big tax giveaways, buddies of the vice president who get no-bid
government contracts so they can charge twice or three times the
market rate, major corporations who get multi-billion dollar bailouts
no strings attached, subsidies for telephone service of people who
choose to live in places like Alaska, and a lot of other stuff.

Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Collision insurance
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2850cf9d787416a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:17 am
From: Marsha


Ben wrote:
> Your company gave you wrong/misleading info.
>
> Medical bills etc aren't covered. But your collision insurance will
> cover damage to the car if the other person is uninsured. I checked
> this multiple times before I removed it.
>

Are you sure that this isn't specific to your policy and/or your state?

My question to the rep was very specific. "If I don't have
uninsured/underinsured coverage, and someone without insurance or
inadequate insurance causes an accident, what would my insurance pay?"
Her response was "nothing."

Marsha/Ohio

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:29 am
From: "Ben"

"Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gitqs2$c4s$1@news.datemas.de...
> Ben wrote:
> > Your company gave you wrong/misleading info.
>>
>> Medical bills etc aren't covered. But your collision insurance will
>> cover damage to the car if the other person is uninsured. I checked
>> this multiple times before I removed it.
>>
>
> Are you sure that this isn't specific to your policy and/or your state?

No. I am sure. I had checked multiple times earlier.

I got this from googling.
http://www.whybike.com/blog/index.php?p=152

As it says, your comprehensive will take care of the repair
costs of your vehicle, but you will have to pay the deductible.
But your medical expenses etc, loss of wages etc will not be
paid.

>
> My question to the rep was very specific. "If I don't have
> uninsured/underinsured coverage, and someone without insurance or
> inadequate insurance causes an accident, what would my insurance pay?" Her
> response was "nothing."

Her response was wrong. Check again.


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:59 am
From: Dave Garland


Ben wrote:

> You don't need uninsured motorist coverage.

You do in Minnesota. Also liability, personal injury, and
underinsured motorist.

Dave


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:02 am
From: George


Marsha wrote:
> George wrote:
>> Marsha wrote:
>>> Vic Smith wrote:
>>>> If you can write off $7000 without "undue hardship" where's the "undue
>>>> hardship" about kicking in $170 a year?
>>>>
>>>> --Vic
>>>
>>> It's not much, granted, but I abhor donating money to insurance
>>> companies. A necessary evil, though.
>>>
>>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
>> Why? insurance is nothing more than gambling. You are betting
>> something will happen and they are betting that it won't. Most folks
>> can't cover catastrophic stuff but are able to cover the routine
>> stuff. If you add up all of the money you never spent on extended
>> warranties, collision etc you would find that you could easily cover
>> the routine stuff if necessary and still be ahead.
>
> If I want to go to a casino, that's my choice. A minimum of liability
> is required in this state, although, by my insurance company's
> statistics, 50% of drivers do not have even that. That upsets me. Why
> should anyone need to pay for uninsured motorist coverage?
>
> Marsha/Ohio

Votes, if I let my insurance drop and don't return the plate they will
send the state police to remove it. That is known to be a much rarer
occurrence in Philly.

I didn't think liability was under discussion since it is typically a
regulatory requirement and your original question was about collision
insurance.


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:04 am
From: George


Ben wrote:
> "Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gitk2q$nps$2@news.datemas.de...
>> If I want to go to a casino, that's my choice. A minimum of liability is
>> required in this state, although, by my insurance company's statistics,
>> 50% of drivers do not have even that. That upsets me. Why should anyone
>> need to pay for uninsured motorist coverage?
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>
> You don't need uninsured motorist coverage. You will be covered
> even if you don't have that. Only difference is that you will have to pay
> your regular deductible if an uninsured motorist hits you. OTOH, if you have
> uninsured motorist coverage, you will get the full repair costs without
> a deductible.
>

It isn't an option in PA. Also anyone taking the state required minimum
insurance whose values seem to have been set 50 years ago should rethink
that idea.

> I have never had uninsured motorist coverage after I realized this.
>
>


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:45 am
From: Marsha


George wrote:
> Votes, if I let my insurance drop and don't return the plate they will
> send the state police to remove it. That is known to be a much rarer
> occurrence in Philly.

Ohio doesn't do anything. We don't even have to show proof of insurance
to renew your plate. We only have to sign a statement saying that you
have insurance or have enough money to cover the minimum liability
requirement.


> I didn't think liability was under discussion since it is typically a
> regulatory requirement and your original question was about collision
> insurance.

It evolved into uninsured/underinsured coverage. I'm upset that there
is even a need for such a thing, because of so many irresponsible,
illegal drivers on the road. I'm just bitchin' out loud.

Marsha/Ohio

==============================================================================
TOPIC: self-employed, the price?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:26 am
From: Dennis


On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:45:05 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>clams_casino wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> clams_casino wrote:
>>>
>>>> George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Napoleon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:52:41 -0500, George <george@nospam.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or completely eliminate the income tax and go to a sales tax with
>>>>>>> say a 35% rate to collect equivalent tax funds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's exactly what should be done. Sales tax only, no exceptions for
>>>>>> anyone. In return, it would be required to fund National Healthcare
>>>>>> with a single payer government fund.
>>>>>> Then the rich would actually, possibly pay taxes. And for frugal
>>>>>> people the hit would not be so bad since we know how to live without
>>>>>> excessively spending anyways. It might also stop Americans from being
>>>>>> considered as only "CONSUMERS" and we might become CITIZENS once
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bah, ha, ha. Like that would ever happen. How would we fund the Afghan
>>>>>> war?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -N
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats the wrong argument for why it would never happen. If a sales
>>>>> tax brought in the same amount of money then it is status quo. It
>>>>> won't happen because of the special interests such as those who have
>>>>> tax exemptions or considerations for whatever reason and the massive
>>>>> industry consisting of accountants and lawyers required for our
>>>>> current tax system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would also significantly shift the burden of tax from the upper
>>>> classes onto the lower and middle classes.
>>>
>>>
>>> It wouldn't have to if implemented in the same fashion as out state
>>> sales tax. Food that you buy to prepare yourself is exempt and so is
>>> basic clothing. Medical is exempt. Pretty much everything else is
>>> taxable.
>>
>>
>> If you don't tax everything, then the percentage will have to be much
>> higher than 35% on the non exempt items.
>
>Sure, but it is fair and responds to your objection. And it would be a
>good thing because when all of the other taxes are removed and
>everything has to be paid via the sales tax folks will get a much better
>grasp of who actually pays for the government when they pay 39% sales tax.

Plus it would tax some of the underground economy. Drug dealers and
other criminals who avoid income taxes still have to/want to buy
stuff.

This is probably one of the main reasons it would never be
implemented.


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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Don't they just print more money?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/372a5a8a074f3f89?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:32 am
From: Dennis


On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:36:59 -0500, "Dave" <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:

>
>"'nam vet." <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
>news:georgewkspam-20E90C.14542323122008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> aren't these "bail-outs" just more $$$ that they print. backed by
>> nothing and they're running these presses 24/7
>> Inflationary? ya think?
>
>It's worse than that. They're not printing money, they are borrowing money,
>mainly from China. So all the bailouts come with decades of interest
>payments, doubling or tripling the dollar amount of the actual money that
>was originally stolen from the taxpayers. Take the original "700 billion"
>package, which was defeated, and then 820 Billion by the time it actually
>passed. The payoff on that one alone is going to be somewhere North of 1.6
>Trillion dollars. So the taxpayers are on the hook for something more than
>1.6 Trillion dollars already. But assuming the loan payoff value is exactly
>1.6 Trillion, and knowing there are about 138,000,000 taxpayers in the U.S.,
>do the math to find out how much each taxpayer is going to pay for that "700
>billion" bailout package. Now multiply by two if you're in the typical
>two-income family... and that is how much money was stolen from YOUR family.
>To go to the Chinese. -Dave

But wait, it gets even better: a big chunk of that money that we
borrowed from the Chinese (with interest) is to cover bad investments
made by Chinese banks and investment firms. Gosh we American
taxpayers are generous!


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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Companies closing down without telling their employees
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e9ad2a790d1b3e5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 12:34 pm
From: "Strider"


"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-628AAC.10083724122008@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com...

> I think it sucks, but it seems to me that in many situations, employees
> can see the writing on the wall. Unless the bosses are cooking the
> books, when business drops significantly, any employee who doesn't
> notice that and doesn't start thinking about his or her job security is
> living in an alternate reality.

True. Newspapers are notorious for folding with very little advance notice.
In Dec. 1991 the Dallas Times Herald announced its demise on a Sunday
afternoon. The paper published its final edition the next day. It was hardly
a surprise, though -- they'd been in the proverbial "downward spiral" for a
couple of years at least. I've read instances of editors sending the
completed pages to the pressroom, then having the publisher arrive in the
newsroom an hour later saying "You've just published the last issue."

Back in college a classmate had been chosen for a summer internship at an
out-of-town newspaper. A week or two before he was scheduled to report, the
paper abruptly folded. No one so much as hinted to him that any trouble was
afoot.

Strider

--
ROT13 the "reply to" for e-mail address.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


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

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