http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* overdraft - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
* Purchase All Available US Autos - 21 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* Change Has Come - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4c55fb53b04dadfb?hl=en
* Great price on flash drive - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/535aa5d17db8f034?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: overdraft
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
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.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 11:37 am
From: clams_casino
tmclone@searchmachine.com wrote:
>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.
>
>
That's certainly NOT been my experience, but I do admit I haven't
attempted such in many years.
==============================================================================
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 11:50 am
From: "Dave"
> hehe. Ain't you so sure of yourself.
> If you think GM and Chevy are going away, you're mistaken.
If so, then the auto execs. are mistaken also. Unlike you, I don't presume
to know more about GM and Chrysler than their CEOs do. GM and Chrysler will
be liquidated soon, and both will cease to exist.
> Despite your fantasies, GM sells as many vehicles as Toyota worldwide.
Well it's a safe bet that Toyota's market share is going to increase after
GM is gone.
> GM is too big to fail.
GM is small potatos compared to AIG, Bear Stearns, Citicorp or JP Morgan
Chase.
> Heard that before?
Yeah, in reference to corporations much bigger and better managed than GM!
> Don't let hate cloud your judgement.
Don't let ignorance cloud yours. -Dave
== 2 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 11:52 am
From: "Dave"
>>
>> 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.
So you're arguing for smaller government? I can't disagree then. -Dave
== 3 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 12:05 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:50:16 -0500, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>> hehe. Ain't you so sure of yourself.
>> If you think GM and Chevy are going away, you're mistaken.
>
>If so, then the auto execs. are mistaken also. Unlike you, I don't presume
>to know more about GM and Chrysler than their CEOs do. GM and Chrysler will
>be liquidated soon, and both will cease to exist.
>
So you believe these jomocas asking for the handout? Pretty funny.
And you think that all GM worldwide operations will just melt away?
And you think all the production and engineering skill will be hired
by Toyota?
Or perhaps much of that production capacity will be taken over by
other investors?
Assuming it is, do you suppose the GM brands will be discarded, and
they will call their products Acme and Vitex?
As I said, I believe you are consumed by hate for these industries,
and it has clouded your judgement.
But this is unfolding quickly, and we shall soon see.
Unlike you, I am not given to making such rash prognostications.
I will be back to either say you were right - or call you a damn fool.
And I don't deeply care which it is. But one will be a lot more fun!
--Vic
== 4 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 12:28 pm
From: "Dave"
>>
> So you believe these jomocas asking for the handout? Pretty funny.
I believe the jomocas when they say that Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7 which
equals liquidation, which means that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist.
Of course, both GM and Chrysler will cease to exist without Chapter 11. So
there ya go. The auto execs. claim that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist
soon.
> And you think that all GM worldwide operations will just melt away?
Oh, some might be absorbed into other corporations like Toyota or Kia maybe?
Try buying a Chevy anything brand new in 2010. You won't be able to find
one.
> And you think all the production and engineering skill will be hired
> by Toyota?
No, I expect huge job losses. There is no way to avoid it, so there is no
reason to worry about it, and even LESS reason to throw money at the
problem!
> Or perhaps much of that production capacity will be taken over by
> other investors?
Well when GM and Chrysler fail, other brands will gain market share.
> Assuming it is, do you suppose the GM brands will be discarded, and
> they will call their products Acme and Vitex?
I don't know about Acme and Vitex, but discarding the GM brand names would
be the smart thing to do, as far as protecting the interests of the
shareholders of whoever picks up the pieces goes.
> As I said, I believe you are consumed by hate for these industries,
> and it has clouded your judgement.
No, my position on the issue is logical. GM and Chrysler can not ever be
self-sustaining without Chapter 11, which the auto execs. vehemently oppose.
They say that Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7, which means that GM and Chrysler
will cease to exist. There are only two options, and they both lead to the
end of GM and Chrysler. Logically speaking, there is no third option.
A close friend of our family owns a GM dealer (Chevy, Pontiac, Buick). I
don't want GM to fail, but there is no logical way to avoid it. Throwing
several billion dollars a month at the problem indefinitely (or at least 20
or 30 years) is economic suicide. Short of that, there is Chapter 11. But
Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7.
GM and Chrysler MUST die, for THE GOOD OF THE ECONOMY. It is the GM and
Chrysler autoworkers who should be lobbying for Chapter 11 right now. That
is their only hope, and even that is not likely to be a good long-term
solution.
> But this is unfolding quickly, and we shall soon see.
> Unlike you, I am not given to making such rash prognostications.
> I will be back to either say you were right - or call you a damn fool.
> And I don't deeply care which it is. But one will be a lot more fun!
>
> --Vic
Vic - GM in particular is losing billions of dollars a month right now, and
it would take 20 or 30 years to turn that corporation around to try (and
probably fail) to make it self-sustaining. The real problem is that GM and
Chrysler have lost the perceived value war with the Japs and Koreans. That
situation will never be resolved in GM or Chrysler's favor. The best thing
for the U.S. and worldwide economy would be for GM and Chrysler to be
liquidated. The uncertainty about what is going to happen is really
draining the economy. Best that these two dinosaurs die a quick death so
that the remaining corporations can get on with what they do best...and that
is employing U.S. autoworkers to build automobiles with high perceived
value. Cars like Toyota, Honda and Kia, for example. -Dave
== 5 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 12:54 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:28:15 -0500, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>>>
>> So you believe these jomocas asking for the handout? Pretty funny.
>
>I believe the jomocas when they say that Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7 which
>equals liquidation, which means that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist.
>Of course, both GM and Chrysler will cease to exist without Chapter 11. So
>there ya go. The auto execs. claim that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist
>soon.
>
>> And you think that all GM worldwide operations will just melt away?
>
>Oh, some might be absorbed into other corporations like Toyota or Kia maybe?
>Try buying a Chevy anything brand new in 2010. You won't be able to find
>one.
>
>> And you think all the production and engineering skill will be hired
>> by Toyota?
>
>No, I expect huge job losses. There is no way to avoid it, so there is no
>reason to worry about it, and even LESS reason to throw money at the
>problem!
>
>> Or perhaps much of that production capacity will be taken over by
>> other investors?
>
>Well when GM and Chrysler fail, other brands will gain market share.
>
>> Assuming it is, do you suppose the GM brands will be discarded, and
>> they will call their products Acme and Vitex?
>
>I don't know about Acme and Vitex, but discarding the GM brand names would
>be the smart thing to do, as far as protecting the interests of the
>shareholders of whoever picks up the pieces goes.
>
>
>> As I said, I believe you are consumed by hate for these industries,
>> and it has clouded your judgement.
>
>No, my position on the issue is logical. GM and Chrysler can not ever be
>self-sustaining without Chapter 11, which the auto execs. vehemently oppose.
>They say that Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7, which means that GM and Chrysler
>will cease to exist. There are only two options, and they both lead to the
>end of GM and Chrysler. Logically speaking, there is no third option.
>
>A close friend of our family owns a GM dealer (Chevy, Pontiac, Buick). I
>don't want GM to fail, but there is no logical way to avoid it. Throwing
>several billion dollars a month at the problem indefinitely (or at least 20
>or 30 years) is economic suicide. Short of that, there is Chapter 11. But
>Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7.
>
>GM and Chrysler MUST die, for THE GOOD OF THE ECONOMY. It is the GM and
>Chrysler autoworkers who should be lobbying for Chapter 11 right now. That
>is their only hope, and even that is not likely to be a good long-term
>solution.
>
>
>> But this is unfolding quickly, and we shall soon see.
>> Unlike you, I am not given to making such rash prognostications.
>> I will be back to either say you were right - or call you a damn fool.
>> And I don't deeply care which it is. But one will be a lot more fun!
>>
>> --Vic
>
>Vic - GM in particular is losing billions of dollars a month right now, and
>it would take 20 or 30 years to turn that corporation around to try (and
>probably fail) to make it self-sustaining. The real problem is that GM and
>Chrysler have lost the perceived value war with the Japs and Koreans. That
>situation will never be resolved in GM or Chrysler's favor. The best thing
>for the U.S. and worldwide economy would be for GM and Chrysler to be
>liquidated. The uncertainty about what is going to happen is really
>draining the economy. Best that these two dinosaurs die a quick death so
>that the remaining corporations can get on with what they do best...and that
>is employing U.S. autoworkers to build automobiles with high perceived
>value. Cars like Toyota, Honda and Kia, for example. -Dave
I disagree on a number of points, but this has been beaten to death.
And my disagreement isn't very robust
We shall see.
--Vic
== 6 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 12:58 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>>>
>> So you believe these jomocas asking for the handout? Pretty funny.
>
> I believe the jomocas when they say that Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7 which
> equals liquidation, which means that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist.
> Of course, both GM and Chrysler will cease to exist without Chapter 11. So
> there ya go. The auto execs. claim that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist
> soon.
GM and chrysler will not cease to exist. They will cease to
exist as we know them if liquidated, but those name plates and the model
names alone have value and someone will build vehicles under those
names.
Atari was liquidated, yet one can still buy new new atari products
today. Ultimately the atari name was worth too much to let go and
someone rebuilt a company from the ashes.
== 7 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:01 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Bert Hyman wrote:
> 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.
Nope, fact. Thats what Hoover did after the Wall St crash.
== 8 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:03 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Dave 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?
Never said that. JUST that thats what Hoover did after the Wall St crash and thats what produced the great depression.
== 9 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:03 pm
From: "Dave"
"Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gi94qd$cbg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> On 2008-12-16, Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> So you believe these jomocas asking for the handout? Pretty funny.
>>
>> I believe the jomocas when they say that Chapter 11 equals Chapter 7
>> which
>> equals liquidation, which means that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist.
>> Of course, both GM and Chrysler will cease to exist without Chapter 11.
>> So
>> there ya go. The auto execs. claim that GM and Chrysler will cease to
>> exist
>> soon.
>
> GM and chrysler will not cease to exist. They will cease to
> exist as we know them if liquidated,
OK, it's hard to dispute that. But I believe it's a matter of WHEN, not IF,
as far as liquidation goes. -Dave
== 10 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:06 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Brent wrote:
> 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.
Thats what produced the Wall St crash. What produced the great depression
after that was Hoover's terminal stupidity along the lines mentioned.
> When the bubble burst the government increased its inteventions into the market*.
But didnt see MORE govt until FDR got elected.
> The end result was a long deep depression.
What turned the Wall St crash into the great depression what Hoover's stupid policy of LESS govt.
> *Contrary to the government school version of history,
> Hoover was an interventionist just like Bush.
But was into LESS govt.
> FDR then did intervention on steroids which resulted in a longer and deeper depression.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
== 11 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:09 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Bert Hyman wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bert Hyman wrote
>>> edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>> 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.
That only specified what the FEDERAL govt was limited to doing,
not govt in general, which is what was being discussed.
> I didn't really expect to see it go down so quickly.
> Oh well.
Doesnt matter a damn what you expected.
== 12 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:12 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Dave wrote:
>> 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.
Its just a change in common usage of that word over time.
>> 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?
More fool you. Nuke have ensure that there wont be WW3, you watch.
We wont even see India and Pakistan at war with each other either, you watch.
== 13 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:14 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
> Dave 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?
>
> Never said that. JUST that thats what Hoover did after the Wall St crash and thats what produced the great depression.
hoover was an inteventionist. FDR followed hoover's lead on steroids.
== 14 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:18 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
SMS wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>>> It is quite unfair to put the blame for this crisis on the shoulders
>>> of the UAW. It's the big 3 management that made the decisions that
>>> led to this. A transfer of money to the big 3 isn't going to fix the
>>> problem, something needs to be done to get people buying vehicles.
>>
>> That won't help. You can't compel or encourage people to buy enough
>> vehicles, as long as the current union contracts (including retiree
>> benefits) are in force. Only bankruptcy can fix that issue.
> This is true. An orderly bankruptcy, similar to the airline bankruptcies, would be best.
Can't work with the car industry. No one is going to be stupid
enough to buy a car made by a bankrupt corp, you watch.
> But combine that with a $6000 tax credit,
> spread over three years on vehicles with a VIN beginning with 1 or 4.
> No tax credit for vehicles manufactured outside the U.S..
Doesn't help with those with enough of a clue to buy
foreign cars made in the US, so that won't help the Big 3.
> I don't think that a voucher would be a good idea. It would cause the wrong people to run out and buy cars, and it
> would cause the dealers and manufacturers to be less competitive.
Just as true of a tax credit in spades.
>> Until all the current union contracts are nixed, the Japs and Koreans are winning the perceived value war.
> That problem goes beyond the union contracts.
Yep.
> It's directly related to the profit margins.
Yep.
> 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.
Yep.
> 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 vast bulk of the car buyers would keep buying foreign cars, at most assembled in the US.
== 15 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:18 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Thats what produced the Wall St crash. What produced the great depression
> after that was Hoover's terminal stupidity along the lines mentioned.
by being an interventionist.
>> When the bubble burst the government increased its inteventions into the market*.
> But didnt see MORE govt until FDR got elected.
government doesn't need to grow to intervene.
>> The end result was a long deep depression.
> What turned the Wall St crash into the great depression what Hoover's stupid policy of LESS govt.
Wrong. Hoover was an interventionist. The problem was government
interference from the get go.
>> *Contrary to the government school version of history,
>> Hoover was an interventionist just like Bush.
>
> But was into LESS govt.
Realizing your grade and high school teachers were wrong doesn't reflect
badly on you.
>> FDR then did intervention on steroids which resulted in a longer and deeper depression.
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
http://www.google.com/search?q=FDR+lengthened+depression
http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
== 16 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:23 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
SMS wrote:
> 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. It may be the best solution for them. What's the down side
> other than pride?
The fact that hardly anyone is stupid enough to buy a car from an operation in Ch 11.
Just because they can be completely confident that the foreign car manufacturers will be
around for at least the warranty period and much more but the corp in Ch11 may well not be.
> 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.
That is the fundamental cause of their current problems. Like you said,
you can only charge what the market will bear for a car and when that
doesnt produce a profit, you're fucked. So you have to concentrate on
flogging tarted up trucks where you can still make a small profit when
paying the benefits that the massive overhang of whose who used to
'work' for the Big 3 at one time inevitably cost the Big 3, just because
they have been around in the US for a hell of a lot longer with the
stupid system of the employer paying the health care costs.
== 17 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:04 pm
From: "Dave"
> Never said that. JUST that thats what Hoover did after the Wall St crash
> and thats what produced the >great depression.
You are refusing the response with the cause. -Dave
== 18 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:06 pm
From: "Dave"
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
>
Rod? Is that you? Serious question. -Dave
== 19 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:07 pm
From: "Dave"
"Simon Jones" <sj@hsed.com> wrote in message
news:6qqjuiFe3cvkU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> More fool you.
Awwww shit, Rod Speed has nymshifted. -Dave
== 20 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:38 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-16, Simon Jones <sj@hsed.com> wrote:
>> Dave 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?
>>
>> Never said that. JUST that thats what Hoover did after the Wall St
>> crash and thats what produced the great depression.
>
> hoover was an inteventionist.
That wasnt what was being discussed. What was being discussed was LESS govt.
> FDR followed hoover's lead on steroids.
It was nothing like Hoover's lead.
== 21 of 21 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 2:39 pm
From: "Simon Jones"
Dave wrote:
>> Never said that. JUST that thats what Hoover did after the Wall St
>> crash and thats what produced the >great depression.
>
> You are refusing the response with the cause.
I didn't even comment on cause, JUST your stupid demand for LESS govt.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Change Has Come
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4c55fb53b04dadfb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:30 pm
From: MSfortune@mcpmail.com
On Dec 15, 9:45 pm, prosp126 <lmh3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2008 - A year for new beginnings! Change has come to our nation, which
> in turn has come to the world. Change is in the atmosphere--can you
> not feel it, sense it, see it? This is the hour for true prosperity to
> rise among those who will seek it. True prosperity in the sense of
> people helping people to become all that they were created to be, not
> for the benefit of themselves, but for the benefit of others. (We are
> our brother's keeper.) Now is the time to position ourselves to create
> the kind of world that we desire. Let's embrace the change that has
> come, and use it to propel us to unprecedented heights for the good of
> all mankind.
Quit pleasurizing yourself.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Great price on flash drive
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/535aa5d17db8f034?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 16 2008 1:59 pm
From: "Forrest"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6qoohpFdpomoU1@mid.individual.net...
> Forrest wrote:
>> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
>> news:GY6dnRiHHoN_i9rUnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@posted.visi...
>>> Forrest wrote:
>>>> I thought I saw a question here not long ago, about flash drives.
>>>> Anywhoo ... can't believe how cheap they are now. My brother asked
>>>> me if I knew of
>>>> any good deals on them and I just found this at NewEgg. Hard to
>>>> beat, with
>>>> the free shipping. I already have an 8 gig LG drive and can't say
>>>> as I really use it that much but what the hell, for $9 after MIL,
>>>> I'll bite. Just
>>>> thought I would pass it on. Makes for a good stocking stuffer.
>>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233037
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But other people should be warned, that $10 rebate requires a sales
>>> receipt dated no later than 12/15. Unless NewEgg is staying late
>>> tonight, it's too late.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Ah, good eyes. I didn't see that. Well, it's only 7 something PM,
>> here in California. I don't really NEED one but then again, the one
>> that I have could go out and I would probably have to pay a lot more
>> to replace it. How's that for a rationalization for spending money?
>> I'm a real sucker for free shipping.
>
> There's plenty on ebay for the same value, and 16Gs as well for the same
> price per GB
Didn't know that. I just started searching for them and found this one. I
ordered one last night and I see that the rebate has been extended.
Anywhoooo .. over n' out.
==============================================================================
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