Frugal Living: Aug 2, 2008

Saturday, August 2, 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: Drying Clothes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a8e6e539cfb63a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 12:01 am
From: Dave Garland

It was a dark and stormy night when "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
<derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:

>i've read that your clothes remain germy until they're put in the dryer or
>dried in sunlight.

Unless you're washing diapers, this isn't likely to be an issue.

Do you live somewhere where there's no sunlight?

Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To juice or not.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:42 am
From: clams_casino

William Souden wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>
>>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>>
>>
>> You need a dictionary.
>

Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.

Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity
to the reply.

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 3:15 am
From: "Rod Speed"

clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote

>>> You are obviously under the misnomer

>> You need a dictionary.

> Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.

> Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity to the reply.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 7:27 am
From: William Souden

Rod Speed wrote:
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>
>>>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>
>>> You need a dictionary.
>
>> Agreed, I used that word completely incorrectly.
>
>> Thanks for the reply - Rod. Having you disagree adds complete validity to the reply.
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>
Another fact frilled reply from welfare boy.
You know you really got to him when you get the flushing bot.

William Souden
sales fool/ race track bum

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 10:29 am
From: Pan

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:23:46 -0400, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>
>With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
>we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
>inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc

Where have you been for the last six years.
Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and 9/11 because of Clinton
not taking Osoma when offered.
The stock market grew for five of those six years
Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.

>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..

Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
information. Cite please.

> GW has been all about providing
>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.

The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
welfare.
But I agree, too much of my money that I worked for is going to other
people.

>
>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>do with the economy,
He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>
>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>the next election.
And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 10:35 am
From: Pan

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT), tmclone@searchmachine.com
wrote:

>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>is
>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>Clinton
>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>address.
>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>Washington,
>the better off we'll all be.

You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
growth, which we have not had under Bush
And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which pissed me off) , but Oboma will
spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 10:40 am
From: Pan

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
>respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
>taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
>taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
>favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
>ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>
Just where do you get this information.
The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
income.

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 11:04 am
From: clams_casino

Pan wrote:

>O
>
>
>Where have you been for the last six years.
>Bush inherited a recession from Clinton
>

Huh? From what I recall, the 2001 recession started when business &
investors flocked to bonds & CDs while reducing business expansion upon
his election - fear of GW leadership.

and 9/11 because of Clinton

>not taking Osoma when offered.
>
>

What did that have to do with the Iraq invasion?

>The stock market grew for five of those six years
>Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.
>
>
>
>

Hello - the stock market indices are essentially where they were when GW
was appointed office. Hoe's your Roth? Making any profits?

>>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>>
>>
>
>Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
>information. Cite please.
>
>

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8672 is one of many.

>
>
>
>>GW has been all about providing
>>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.
>>
>>
>
>The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
>welfare.
>
>
>

What jobs? The housing industry was the most significant part of the
job growth over the past six years and that had more to do with the Fed
lowering borrowing rates in a desperate attempt to bail out GW's poor
leadership.

>
>
>>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>>do with the economy,
>>
>>
>He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>
>

Huh? The president has everything to due with the economy. He sets
the stage - business & investors react accordingly. Granted, it's
mostly perception, but when the outlook looks poor, savvy investors
invest less, individuals spend less, business es don't expand. Under
Clinton, most thought the party would never end - the economy grew
accordingly. Under GW, it's been doom & gloom - poor expectations, etc.

>>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>>the next election.
>>
>>
>And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.
>
>

If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 11:13 am
From: clams_casino

Pan wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:06 -0700 (PDT), tmclone@searchmachine.com
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
>>is
>>ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
>>Clinton
>>left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
>>address.
>>Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
>>sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
>>Washington,
>>the better off we'll all be.
>>
>>
>
>You mean that You did better under the higher taxes?
>
>

Unless you are in the top 1% (<$250k/ yr), it's highly unlikely you are
better off today vs. 10 years ago.

>And there was a recession when Clinton left, two quartets of negative
>growth, which we have not had under Bush
>
>

Do you make up all your facts?

>And yes, Bush is a big spender,(which pissed me off) , but Oboma will
>spend more, and tax more. So if you think that Government can spend
>your money more wisely then you can, vote Dem.
>
>

While I'd like to see reduced government spending (and borrowing), it'll
likely be spent more wisely with Obama than GW has or McBush promises.

Key will be to revive the US dollar & change the attitude / perception
from doom & gloom to hope / prosperity. Improved international
relations can play a significant factor. Pissing off allies has not
been effective.

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 11:23 am
From: clams_casino

Pan wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
><PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
>>respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
>>taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
>>taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
>>favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
>>ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>>
>>
>>
>Just where do you get this information.
>The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>income.
>
>

which is a very small portion of the total, essentially balanced out by
the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.

Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the recent
crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:03 pm
From: sf

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:04:50 -0400, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
>chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
>international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..

I think you'll appreciate this one, if you haven't already seen it.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/

Peter, I removed the xpost to rec.food.cooking because I haven't
noticed you posting there before this thread. My apologies to
everyone else here, but this is what happens when posters don't use a
valid return address.

--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:23 pm
From: clams_casino

sf wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:04:50 -0400, clams_casino
><PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
>>chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
>>international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..
>>
>>
>
>I think you'll appreciate this one, if you haven't already seen it.
>http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/
>
>
>
>
>
Priceless - does sum it up..

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Pan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:02:26 -0400, clams_casino
>> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance
>>> with respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of
>>> total taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is
>>> TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the
>>> percentage in favor of the top. It's time to reverse that
>>> pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to
>>> do.
>> Just where do you get this information.
>> The poor with the section 8 housing, free health care, welfare
>> payments,child credits & rebates pay a negative percentage of their
>> income.

> which is a very small portion of the total,

Wrong, as always.

> essentially balanced out by the relatively few wealthy who pay little no no income taxes.

Wrong, as always.

> Personally, I get much more welfare than those you are describing
> through the significant subsidies I (and many others) enjoy through
> generous deductions of mortgage interest, property taxes and a very
> generous, essentially tax free medical coverage. I do pay a
> significant amount of taxes, but without these generous subsidies, I'd
> never have been able to afford my more-than-adequate home which has
> appreciated significantly in value over the years (in site of the
> recent crash), where the proceeds are .... tax free.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made about most all paying the same flat tax.

Thats a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: nice images
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a3807fb626f4cf4a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 3:30 am
From: jeni

nice images
hot pic
amazing vid

**********************************
http://sathisr0.blogspot.com
**********************************

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 3:46 am
From: cool

nice images
hot pic
amazing vid

**********************************
http://sathisr0.blogspot.com
**********************************

==============================================================================
TOPIC: frugal used battery
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1b65b3938e1db748?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 4:17 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <U_CdnUiwZ-iofQ7VnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:

> My car battery died a couple weeks back and I bought a new battery.
> This morning I found out that I no longer had a car battery.
>
> I've acquired a used battery that looks like it's been overfilled and
> is not holding a charge for long. Aren't there some tricks to
> rejuvinating used car batteries?
>
> Jeff

Maybe its a matter of personal preference, but I get in my car and start
it, the last thing I want is for the battery to die. Considering that
car batteries rarely have to be replaced and they are not very
expensive, I prefer to buy a new one when the time comes and not worry
about if the old battery will continue to work. If starting your car is
important to you, don't bother with a used battery.

By the way, I don't understand your first paragraph. If you bought a new
car battery, what happened to it? If it went bad, can't you have it
replaced under its factory warranty?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 10:54 am
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)

In article <U_CdnUiwZ-iofQ7VnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> My car battery died a couple weeks back and I bought a new battery.
>This morning I found out that I no longer had a car battery.

Next item on the list is some way of locking the hood, or relocating the
battery to the trunk.

> I've acquired a used battery that looks like it's been overfilled and
>is not holding a charge for long. Aren't there some tricks to
>rejuvinating used car batteries?

Another new battery is a better choice than trying to fix a damaged one.
Stick with minimum cost until the theft problem is solved.

Gary

--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

Why is it that these days, the words "What idiot" are so frequently
followed by the words "at Microsoft"?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free Ipod Touch
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7cbd7e1941e2f231?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 10:48 am
From: ebster

Get a Free Ipod Touch, Fast, Free and Easy

http://www.myworldplussuccess.com/ipod.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 3000 Sat. TV Channels On Your PC
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c393f9cf81505a63?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 11:51 am
From: Sven

Receive 3000 Satellite TV channels on your PC.
No monthly fee just a one time download.
Watch movies news and your favorite shows from all around the globe.
Watch from any where you have a Internet connection.
Learn more at:

http://tinyurl.com/sat-tv

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WARNING RE PURITAN'S PRIDE SHIPPMENTS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/d7d3e0a5dbac9a4f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:00 pm
From: RF

Billy wrote:
> In article <g6o2lr$hdv$2@news.tornevall.net>, l <L@L.ORG> wrote:
>
>> "trigonometry1972@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:8c2c0318-5f76-4163-9f7b-56b102578fb6@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 3:40 pm, MikeHelms <MikeHe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I notice no one offered suggestions for alternative suppliers. I too
>>>> have had problems with Puritan's Pride.
>>>>
>>>> idesofmarch <idesofma...@consumerwatch.org> wrote
>>>> innews:g6j09g$4dg$1@new
>>> s.tornevall.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Don't count on getting your Puritan's Pride vitamins/supplements
>>>>> order on time; in good condition, since their main method of
>>>>> shipping is UPS (united parcel service)
>>>>> UPS has repeatedly ignored instructions to require a signature to
>>>>> ensure delivery to the right party, leaves stuff with neighbors
>>>>> anyways. My last order of nutritional oils had to be thrown away
>>>>> because the UPS driver left the stuff in the sun (on purpose I
>>>>> suspect, following my complaints to UPS).
>>>>> Faxes to the CEO of Puritan's Pride, Scott Rudolf (German SS? ha!)
>>>>> has been ignored about this issue. Apparently, he does not give a
>>>>> sh*t.
>>>>> If anyone knows a better supplier with better shipping please post
>>>>> here.
>>> The problem here isn't so much Puritan's Pride as it is the
>>> package delivery services. While I use both Purtian's Pride
>>> and others, the worry is delivery. Having said that I don't think
>>> I ever lost anything. This is truly a YMMV situation.
>> Many companies offer shipping options. With Puritan's Pride, you
>> basically have only two options. Crap UPS or even crappier U.S. Post
>> Office. They both stink.
>
> Get a life people.

Right on. I guess I works for FedEx

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:01 pm
From: RF

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <g6j09g$4dg$1@news.tornevall.net>,
> idesofmarch <idesofmarch@consumerwatch.org> wrote:
>
>> Don't count on getting your Puritan's Pride vitamins/supplements order
>> on time; in good condition, since their main method of shipping is UPS
>> (united parcel service)
>>
>> UPS has repeatedly ignored instructions to require a signature to ensure
>> delivery to the right party, leaves stuff with neighbors anyways. My
>> last order of nutritional oils had to be thrown away because the UPS
>> driver left the stuff in the sun (on purpose I suspect, following my
>> complaints to UPS).
>>
>> Faxes to the CEO of Puritan's Pride, Scott Rudolf (German SS? ha!) has
>> been ignored about this issue. Apparently, he does not give a sh*t.
>>
>> If anyone knows a better supplier with better shipping please post here.
>
> Really? My experience with Puritans Pride is totally different. I have
> been a customer of theirs and I have never had a problem getting my
> stuff on time and intact. That being said, why not just buy locally from
> a place such as GNC and not worry about shipping and delivery?

Same here and I have had no problems with either
UPS or USPS.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:11 pm
From: RF

idesofmarch wrote:
> RF <RF@NoDen.con> wrote in news:6f51nfF9op4tU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> idesofmarch wrote:
>>> Don't count on getting your Puritan's Pride vitamins/supplements
>>> order on time; in good condition, since their main method of shipping
>>> is UPS (united parcel service)
>>>
>>> UPS has repeatedly ignored instructions to require a signature to
>>> ensure delivery to the right party, leaves stuff with neighbors
>>> anyways. My last order of nutritional oils had to be thrown away
>>> because the UPS driver left the stuff in the sun (on purpose I
>>> suspect, following my complaints to UPS).
>>>
>>> Faxes to the CEO of Puritan's Pride, Scott Rudolf (German SS? ha!)
>>> has been ignored about this issue. Apparently, he does not give a
>>> sh*t.
>>>
>>> If anyone knows a better supplier with better shipping please post
>>> here.
>>
>> I have bought from Puritan regularly and the
>> shipments came via UPS. My porch is shaded, about
>> 30' from the street, and the parcels are always
>> left there. I never had any problems with either
>> company. Why the heck do you insist on signatures?
>> This can greatly delay the delivery, especially
>> when waiting for a response to a knock or ring, or
>> when nobody is home.
>
>
> Ok, guess I have to buy a house with a shade porch to ensure that no one
> steals my shipments. I suggest you re-review your supplement list as you
> are obviously suffering from toxic dementia.

From the way you are behaving, it is clear that
YOU are the one who has had a bad dose of something.

> Not everyone lives in a house, some live next to questionnable
> neighbors. I pay to have my packages delivered to ME, not so some
> jackass I don't know who may or may not steal it.

Living in that area just proves that you are a
brainless clown. Move!

>> Why not provide a shaded delivery box or, if you
>> are that fussy, then why not pick up your parcel
>> from UPS?

If you have problems with deliveries to your slum,
GO PICK THEM UP!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Inflation
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/043c328b0526b9a5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 1:52 pm
From: clams_casino

Bought some suet today for 79 cents that was 67 cents last year
(3/$2). In another store, their suet was $1.25 per package vs. $1 last
year (more visible seeds / berries).

50 lbs of sunflower seeds that cost me $15 two years ago and $22 last
fall was $25 yesterday.

Granted, it's still cheap entertainment, but 14-25% annual inflation?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: clothes washers and dryers for older units with "weak" plumbing?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c09777ed837c7055?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 2:16 pm
From: "M.L."

>>I live in a relatively old condo complex, built in the 1960=92s or
>>1970=92s, and not the fanciest place around. One issue is that we can=92t
>>have clothes washers or dryers in the units because (we are told) the
>>plumbing can=92t handle it (and maybe the ventilation system, I'm not
>>sure if that's an issue too). I don=92t know the technical details of
>>that, just what they tell us. (We have a common laundry room with
>>coin machines.)
>>
>>Question: With all the advances in technology, you=92d think someone
>>would have developed washers/dryers designed for these older type
>>living units. The people who run the condo complex may not be aware
>>of such units (if they exist), so I=92m posting this query.

Apartment washers and dryers used to be popular in the late 60's/mid 70's.
You filled them from a faucet and drained them into a sink or tub. They
ranged from an old-fashioned wringer washer, to one we owned that had a
rotary agitator and a small spin tub on the side to which we had to manually
transfer the load for spin drying. We coupled that with a 120v electric
dryer which vented into the house. It all worked quite well. Unfortunately,
I couldn't find any such units from my web search.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 2:33 pm
From: "M.L."

The Avanti W789SA @$319.00, 115v washer has rollers for portability and has
separate fill and drain pipes. Otherwise it is fully automatic.
http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/W789SA.html

GE Spacemaker DSKP333ECWW electric dryer, 120v @$589.00. Exhaust Options:
4-way (Shipped Exhausted Through the Top). No mention of rollers for
portability.
http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/DSKP333ECWW.html
It's probably easier to find a 120v electric dryer than a rollable portable
washer.

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

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

11 new messages in 5 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:

* To juice or not. - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
* Limbaugh omits a detail - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6fb865f8cedae1e6?hl=en
* cheap bcbg,prada,chanel,lv,juicy,hermes,jimmy choo,chloe,miumiu handbags,
purse - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6c7ec07e5c7052c8?hl=en
* frugal used battery - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1b65b3938e1db748?hl=en
* How to spend less electricity? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a8e6e539cfb63a9?hl=en

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:34 pm
From: Marsha

clams_casino wrote:
> Marsha wrote:

>> clams_casino wrote:
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>>> revised government figures indicated."
>>>
>>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>>> government report today. "
>>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>>
>>
>> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
>> matter who's in the oval office.
>
>
> With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
> we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
> inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc

I don't think so.

>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs
>

> That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
> (which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
> debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>

So how do you feel about Nancy Pelosi jumping on the tax rebate bandwagon?

>
>> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
>> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
>> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
>> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
>> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
>> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
>> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
>> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
>> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
>> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
> Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
> and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
> poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
> welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
> think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.

There should be more control and accountability on corporate welfare,
just as there should be more control on welfare for the poor.

>
>
> So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
> do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?

I don't think a president has "nothing" to do with the economy, but some
things can be delayed or swayed to turn in the right direction, given
enough time and given a House and Congress who are on board. BTW,
Congress' approval rating is lower than the President's.

>
> If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
> Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
> the next election.

A Republican majority can always "Bork" any nominee they don't like,
just like the Dems have done and continue to do. There are so many
nominees for judges still out there that the Dems are holding up, it's
not funny. Games, always games - by both sides.

Marsha/Ohio

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 6:02 pm
From: clams_casino

Marsha wrote:

> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can find
> a job is not the way to go.
>

You are obviously under the misnomer that the wealthy (on the average)
pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average). (A
misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews,
etc).

While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most
of the wealth. The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US. On the other
hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage
of their income.

After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes
for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored, studies have shown that
most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes where
the wealthy are actually on the lower end. (Ever hear Warren Buffet
comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in
taxes than he?)

Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with
respect to being a flat tax - most all pay a similar amount of total
taxes as a percentage of their total income. The key here is TOTAL
taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income. GW pushed the percentage in
favor of the top. It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus
ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
> Marsha wrote

>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
>> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can
>> find a job is not the way to go.

> You are obviously under the misnomer

You need a dictionary.

> that the wealthy (on the average) pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average).

They do.

> (A misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews, etc).

Nope, a fact, actually.

> While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most of the wealth.

So they pay more tax, stupid.

> The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,

So they pay more tax, stupid.

> but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> On the other hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage of their income.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored,
> studies have shown that most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes

LIke hell they do.

> where the wealthy are actually on the lower end.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> (Ever hear Warren Buffet comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he?)

Irrelevant to the FACT that she pays less tax, stupid.

And the poor that are on benefits or social security etc actually
pay only a small part of their total handout in taxes too.

> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with respect to being a flat tax

Like hell it is.

> - most all pay a similar amount of total taxes as a percentage of their total income.

Another pig ignorant lie,

> The key here is TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

> GW pushed the percentage in favor of the top.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more taxes, stupid.

> It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.

Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:15 pm
From: William Souden

Rod Speed wrote:
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Marsha wrote
>
>>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>>> money and use it to create jobs, and then giving it willy nilly to
>>> those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't) so they can
>>> find a job is not the way to go.
>
>> You are obviously under the misnomer
>
> You need a dictionary.
>
>> that the wealthy (on the average) pay more in taxes than the average / poor (on the average).
>
> They do.
>
>> (A misleading claim widely spread by the lies of Rush, Glen Beck, FoxNews, etc).
>
> Nope, a fact, actually.
>
>> While the wealthy do pay more gross taxes, it's because they have most of the wealth.
>
> So they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> The top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes,
>
> So they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> but they also control 20% of all the wealth in the US.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> On the other hand, they also pay a much lower portion of other taxes as a percentage of their income.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> After the other taxes (social security, sales, property, excise taxes for gas, liquor & cigarettes, etc) are factored,
>> studies have shown that most all pay approximately 29-32% of their gross income in taxes
>
> LIke hell they do.
>
>> where the wealthy are actually on the lower end.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> (Ever hear Warren Buffet comment how his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he?)
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that she pays less tax, stupid.
>
> And the poor that are on benefits or social security etc actually
> pay only a small part of their total handout in taxes too.
>
>> Bottom line is that the current tax code is pretty much in balance with respect to being a flat tax
>
> Like hell it is.
>
>> - most all pay a similar amount of total taxes as a percentage of their total income.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie,
>
>> The key here is TOTAL taxes as a percentage of TOTAL income.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>> GW pushed the percentage in favor of the top.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more taxes, stupid.
>
>> It's time to reverse that pendulum and not focus ONLY on income taxes as Republicans like to do.
>
> Irrelevant to the FACT that they pay more tax, stupid.
>
>
What would a welfare leech know about taxes?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Limbaugh omits a detail
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6fb865f8cedae1e6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:55 pm
From: Sue Bilkens

A dirty republican trick I think.. but don't get me wrong the dems are dirty
too.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:40:15 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "D&SW"
<d&sw@verizon.net> wrote:

>It was not the point of the audio to show Obama as discourteous, so Obama's
>courtesy to the hecklers was irrelevant. The fact that he was being heckled
>by African Americans was the point. Why are you posting this here?
>
>"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>news:jAGkk.16966$mh5.644@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Plays a tape of Obama being heckled. Forgets a minor detail.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry4313429.shtml
>>
>>
>> Obama asked the protesters, whom a local reporter said were members of the
>> state's black panthers legacy group, to "be courteous" and "respect." The
>> Illinois senator said the men would have their chance to speak after his
>> opening remarks.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 6:55 pm
From: "catalpa"

"Sue Bilkens" <sueb@incus.com> wrote in message
news:74c7941r6h5s03ib8a6ifopdiukjrvo0gh@4ax.com...
>
> A dirty republican trick I think.. but don't get me wrong the dems are
> dirty
> too.
>

Far left Black Panthers are a "dirty republican trick" ???

If you bothered to read the aticle at the posted link, you would have read:

"During a question and answer session, Obama called on one of the hecklers.

The man mentioned a slew of controversial issues, such as the government's
response to Hurricane Katrina and the subprime mortgage crisis and asked,
"In the face of all these attacks that are clearly being made on the African
community, why is it that you have not had the ability to not one time speak
to the interests and even speak on the behalf of the oppressed and exploited
African community or Black community in this country?" "

Oh yeah, that is a real Republican point of view.

>
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:40:15 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "D&SW"
> <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>It was not the point of the audio to show Obama as discourteous, so
>>Obama's
>>courtesy to the hecklers was irrelevant. The fact that he was being
>>heckled
>>by African Americans was the point. Why are you posting this here?
>>
>>"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:jAGkk.16966$mh5.644@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Plays a tape of Obama being heckled. Forgets a minor detail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry4313429.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama asked the protesters, whom a local reporter said were members of
>>> the
>>> state's black panthers legacy group, to "be courteous" and "respect."
>>> The
>>> Illinois senator said the men would have their chance to speak after his
>>> opening remarks.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: cheap bcbg,prada,chanel,lv,juicy,hermes,jimmy choo,chloe,miumiu
handbags,purse
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6c7ec07e5c7052c8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 8:37 pm
From: "www.globwholesale.com.cn"

Discount Kooba Handbags, Prada Handbags, Chanel Handbags, LV Handbags,
(G U C C I)Handbags, D&G Handbags, Chloe Handbags, Hermes Handbags,
Guess Handbags, Jimmy Choo Handbags, Bcbg Handbags.
Supply Dior Wallet, Fendi Wallet, Coach Purse, Juicy Purse, Miumiu
Purse

Discount Pro Bowl NFL jersey, NBA Jersey, NHL jersey, MLB jersey
discount price. Suppliers NFL sports jersey, NFL basketball jersey,
NFL football jersey, Reebok NFL jersey, 2008 New NFL jersey
Prada LV Handbags, Chanel Miumiu Purse, Fendi Dior Wallet wholesale

Discount Coach Sandals, Dior Sandals, Prada Sandals, Chanel Sandals,
Versace Sandals, Crocs Sandals, Women's Sandals Men's Slippers From
China

For more products pls visit:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/
browse_thread/thread/a0af29360f55b8af/f143733e958a8012?
hl=en&lnk=st&q=red+monkey+jeans#f143733e958a8012

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 9:18 pm
From: Jeff

My car battery died a couple weeks back and I bought a new battery.
This morning I found out that I no longer had a car battery.

I've acquired a used battery that looks like it's been overfilled and
is not holding a charge for long. Aren't there some tricks to
rejuvinating used car batteries?

Jeff

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 9:54 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:

> My car battery died a couple weeks back and I bought a new battery. This morning I found out that I no longer had a
> car battery.

> I've acquired a used battery that looks like it's been overfilled
> and is not holding a charge for long. Aren't there some tricks to
> rejuvinating used car batteries?

None that are worth bothering with.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to spend less electricity?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a8e6e539cfb63a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 11:59 pm
From: Dave Garland

It was a dark and stormy night when Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I tend to dry my clothes in the dryer, much more effective than the
>washer ever will be.

Yup. But far less efficient than line-drying them.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 2 2008 12:01 am
From: Dave Garland

It was a dark and stormy night when "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
<derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:

>i've read that your clothes remain germy until they're put in the dryer or
>dried in sunlight.

Unless you're washing diapers, this isn't likely to be an issue.

Do you live somewhere where there's no sunlight?

Dave

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

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

Saturday, August 2, 2008

25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

11 new messages in 5 topics - digest