Frugal Living: Oct 3, 2008

Friday, October 3, 2008

17 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: Do Warehouse Stores Really Save You Money?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/512851cfe1d68efd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 2:11 pm
From: SoCalMike

tin cup wrote:
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> Consider this brain buster: You go to a discount warehouse and buy two
>> dozen frozen bagels for, say, $9.60. Or you go to your local bagel
>> shop and buy them for 75 cents apiece. Which one saves you more money?
>>
>> http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=fcefef8c5f474b7987958945d58f864a&siteid=nwhpf&sguid=LlOmLCZmMkSOlLZa0_8Pmw
>>
>>
>> i'm generally a disciplined shopper.
> We go to Sam's to buy meat, because it is not preserved by weird
> chemicals, except for frozen chicken and a few odds and ends.
> We end up throwing half, of it, out because we can't use all, of a
> package in a day or so. They only sell large packages.
> So, no we don't save money.

i shop costco, and found the meat freezes really well. i even season it
and put it in individual ziploc baggies- which are also cheap there.

about the only thing i wont buy is produce, except for maybe whole
hearts of romaine. they keep well in the crisper, and for a couple
bucks, i dont mind tossing 1/5th of em when they go bad.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WHAT NOW? Survival of the fittest!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f7c466e37ae04ad0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 2:14 pm
From: Dennis

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:53:24 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:

>Boo hoo. Those with 250k of debt for their home, SUV, pick-up truck,
>electronics, etc, won't be able to put steak on the balance heavy CC
>and actually have to cook up some food.
>We won't see eye to eye on this. I've been saying for years that we
>should be manufacturing most of our own goods and paying the higher
>prices for them, and not all on credit. Instead we've shipped the
>jobs overseas and glutted ourselves on cheap foreign goods and credit.
>We've been living high off the hog, but some never knew any different
>and think it's their God-given right. It ain't.

Correct. There is a whole new generation since the last big mess 21
years ago that apparently needs to learn the same old lesson the hard
way. Apparently some of the old farts have forgotten, too (or never
learned the first time).

Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 3:40 pm
From: Jeff

Vic Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:34:23 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Vic Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:12:23 +0000 (UTC), Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting to see you so fully in agreement with the Bush
>>>> Administration.
>>>>
>>> If the bailout goes through, the Dems will gain the philosophical
>>> high ground. "Gov management of business is needed."
>>> "Wall Street and Free Enterprise can't operate without the gov."
>>> "Wall Street/Free Market go hand in hand with socialistic principles."
>>> The lefty Dems are loving every minute of this.
>>> Franks is ecstatic.
>> Have you heard Franks? He didn't look enthusiastic to me. I haven't
>> heard anyone that is enthusiastic about this bill. You are reading your
>> own interpretation into this. Oh, it's all some hidden conspiracy agenda.
>>
> Franks has been very pleasant, and seems to be enjoying himself
> immensely. I don't blame him. What I said above about gaining
> political advantage has nothing to do with "paranoia" but is evident
> in the facts. You may think what you want about Frank's reaction,
> and I won't disagree, but there is no denying the "I told you so"
> attitude of the anti-Wall Street crowd has them in the catbird seat.
> It is those saying the sky is falling and we must throw money to
> create more bad debt to fix existing bad debt who are unbalanced.
>
>> The fact of the matter is that there are two groups here, the
>> pragmatists and the idealists.
>>
> I don't see making debt worse as pragmatic.
> There are methods to keep money flowing which won't aggravate the
> underlying cause of the problem - extending credit to those who can't
> pay their debt.
> Plenty of economists say this bailout is the wrong approach.

Obviously a good bit of these "assets" are worthless, but there is a
large number that has some value. Nobody knows what that value is and
using mark to market, you have insufficient assets to cover daily
operations. Something has to be done to establish some value. That I
believe is what Treasury is trying to do. Obviously it is the same crowd
that has gone headlong and without oversight to get us here.

>
>> At last count the Fed had dumped in $500 billion ad hoc. And was
>> treading water. That's why the change of approach.
>>
> The chickens are coming home to roost in the unsustainable debt
> cage. Delaying it by making it worse is a bad solution.
> I'm not alone in that view.

Well, you'll get no argument that it is incredible recklessness and
the regard to the notion that deficits don't matter. Add to that
monetary policy to drive down the dollar. It's been a horrible economic
policy and most unnerving is that they got here deliberately.
>
>> If anything initial failure of this bill has made this more expensive
>> in trying to satisfy "conservatives" by adding in tax breaks and other
>> unfunded perks to the wealthy. With this new bill, you'll probably lose
>> some blue dog democrats who are the only real deficit hawks. Franks
>> himself, said as much, and that he was sympathetic to their cause.
>>
>> It's all so much of the Bush who cried Wolf. Unlike all the other
>> times, the wolf really is at the door. Although his approach has been
>> watched for two years nothing was done.
>>
>> Now, I don't like this bill. But any business that doesn't have a hoard
>> of cash is going to be in big trouble.
>>
> Scare tactics. Those living on credit will have to adjust to reality.
> Businesses that rely on customer purchases of products bought
> on credit which can't be paid back will also have to adjust.
> Reality check time. Now or later.
> Check debt/savings stats. That says it all.

Well, we shall see. Buffett stepping into GE I found interesting. But
it's not buying on credit I'm talking about, I'm talking about keeping
either materials or inventory in stock until it is sold.
>
>> The first to go down will be the auto dealerships. Credit is tight to
>> non existent even for those with excellent credit. So no loans for the
>> buyer and no commercial paper to keep inventory for the dealer. The
>> largest Chevy Dealer is bankrupt.
>>
> Sales are slowing everywhere because people are too far into debt.
> So what?

Well you can't run a negative savings rate for years and expect to
maintain it. But this is a different kettle of fish. It is the perfect
storm.

> A deadbeat here and there is no big deal. Millions of them is another
> story.
>

Deadbeats fine, but there are a lot of big players that rely on
commercial paper to keep their operations going. Most large purchases
are financed. So what happens to companies that have to make payroll or
buy supplies. They know they will have the money in 30 days, but they
need to spend it now. That's a huge chunk of commerce there.

>> I suppose the remaining manufacturers will be crushed next. Then a
>> wave of restaurants will fold.
>>
> Boo hoo. Those with 250k of debt for their home, SUV, pick-up truck,
> electronics, etc, won't be able to put steak on the balance heavy CC
> and actually have to cook up some food.

Well, I could care less about them. And that has been part of the
problem. Those tax cuts to the wealthy, as near as I can figure, are
going on 3 trillion dollars. Trickle down has never worked. The rich
don't put it back in the economy and they really don't need it.

> We won't see eye to eye on this. I've been saying for years that we
> should be manufacturing most of our own goods and paying the higher
> prices for them, and not all on credit.

So, how are you going to purchase raw products and machinery without
access to capital? Existing manufacturing will get slaughtered and they
are. When you are operating on thin margins you don't have wads of cash.

Instead we've shipped the
> jobs overseas and glutted ourselves on cheap foreign goods and credit.
> We've been living high off the hog, but some never knew any different
> and think it's their God-given right. It ain't.

I don't disagree with that.

>> Now, as far as the debt goes, the time to have paid down the debt was
>> when the times were relatively good. But all that money went to tax
>> breaks, a bloated medicare giveaway bill and a senseless war. If you
>> tighten credit further now you'll be doing the same thing that Hoover
>> did after the crash, and we can see where that lead.
>>
> There is no comparison of today to the 1920-30's.
> Why not blame it on Hoot-Smalley?

The repeal of Glass-Steagall doesn't look like such genius now. The
fact is that when you let the sharks do as they please, and there has
been steady effort to reduce oversight, you are always going to get
these disasters after the feeding frenzy.
>
>> It's going to take a while to dig out of this hole.
>>
> We'll see. I sure don't have a crystal ball. Just plenty of cash
> because I've always felt saving was more important than buying
> every toy and having min wage folks prepare my food and cut my grass.
> And whenever I found myself in debt I pulled in my belt and worked
> hard to get out. I didn't throw more debt at it.
> But that's just me, and maybe I'm wrong.
> Doesn't keep me from expressing my views.

Well, I don't have plenty of cash. I do have a stocked wood pile and
going on 300 sf of solar collector. Combine that with a frugal lifestyle
and I'm sure I'll be OK. Frankly, I'd be amused to watch everyone else's
lifestyle catch up with mine.

Jeff

>
> --Vic

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 4:20 pm
From: Dennis

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:08:01 -0400, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>Dennis wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:11:21 -0500, Vic Smith
>><thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:12:23 +0000 (UTC), Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting to see you so fully in agreement with the Bush
>>>>Administration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If the bailout goes through, the Dems will gain the philosophical
>>>high ground. "Gov management of business is needed."
>>>"Wall Street and Free Enterprise can't operate without the gov."
>>>"Wall Street/Free Market go hand in hand with socialistic principles."
>>>The lefty Dems are loving every minute of this.
>>>Franks is ecstatic.
>>>The real conservatives of any stripe find it a disaster in all
>>>respects.
>>>Some strange bedfellows are being made here.
>>>But the problem is easy credit allowing unsustainable debt.
>>>The gov solution? Increase the debt.
>>>Morons.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Right. So the Chinese and Saudi bankers will loan the US taxpayers
>>the money to clean up their own ailing investments.
>>
>>What's wrong with this picture?
>>
>>Dennis (evil)
>>
>>
>
>The alternative is that that buy it next year for cents on the dollar.

Perhaps you don't understand -- nothing in the bailout bill specifies
that the bad investments the treasury buys must be owned by US banks
and investment firms. In fact, Paulson said addition of any kind of
restriction on buying up foreign-held paper would result in a veto.

Dennis (evil)
--
Believing we can politely influence politicians is rather like believing we can reason with men who fly airplanes into buildings.
-- Claire Wolfe

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 4:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote
> Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote

>> Right. So the Chinese and Saudi bankers will loan the US
>> taxpayers the money to clean up their own ailing investments.

>> What's wrong with this picture?

> Plenty.
> The scare tactics about tight money coming from those pushing debt don't seem reflected by reality.

Have fun explaining the LIBOR rate.

> Or maybe lenders know their bad loans will still be
> backed by the taxpayer because of the scare tactics.

They do because they realise that Congress will pass it for sure and will just vary the detail.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The LIFE of a TracFone?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fa87e01204a61f4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 2:18 pm
From: SoCalMike

joshhemming@fastmail.fm wrote:
> My question is how long can you reasonably expect a cell phone to
> last, if you're careful not to drop it or let it get stolen? How long
> before the rechargeable battery stops taking or holding a charge?

ive got a nokia 5600 series thats got to be about 10+ years old. still
has the pacific bell SIM card (pacific bell became cingular, later ATT)
and the original battery.

works great as a backup alarm, and i can still play that "snake" game.

dunno bout the newer phones, though.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 2:44 pm
From: SoCalMike

Gunner Asch wrote:

> "Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises

her daughters

babies
> and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

while preaching abstinence

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 3:07 pm
From: AL

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:45:49 -0500, AL wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>> Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
>>> $700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face the
>>> consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for a
>>> while but will acquire stability faster than throwing tax dollars at the
>>> tycoons and thereby proping up artificially inflated values.
>>
>> Funny how all the indignant liberals went on a tirade about how Bush lied
>> about Iraq and how much money is being wasted there, but now that they
>> have the chance to pile their wish lists ($600B+) on top of yet another
>> ($700B) lie, they're voting in favor... Ain't politics great?
>
> I agree with the content but be careful bandying about "liberal". This
> disaster has been caused by neocon liberals, socially conservative and
> economically liberal. The street definition is socially liberal and
> economically liberal which is not the major factor in this disaster.
>
> Two other variations exist, economically conservative / socially liberal
> which incompasses most of us. Finally economically conservative /
> social conservative which is often the religious wackos who were deluded
> into supporting the neocon social conservativism but turned a blind eye to
> the downside, economically liberal half.
>
>> I'm definitely feeling the effects of the market right now but I'm
>> willing to tough out djia of 9000 to see the rot purged from the system
>> and hopefully find solid footing again in a few years.
>>
>>
>> AL
>
> That's the wise course of action. There is no guarantee that throwing all
> this money at the current problem will stop a djia decline. In my opinion
> bailing out Wall Street Tycoons and New York Banks will only encourage
> them to take more risky actions requiring a further bail out. In for a
> penny, in for a dime. Once bailed out politicians won't be able to say no
> a second time as too much was invested. And the culprits face no
> consequences for their gambling.
>

Agreed. I will be watching closely for a nice bump in the market, up to
hopefully a nice gain for my investments, then I just might pull the
plug and sit out the rest of the game. I almost did that back when the
djia was 15k - kicked myself a thousand times since for listening to my
investment "advisor".

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 5:40 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:35:45 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:31:51 -0400, clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to
>>>> give $700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers
>>>> face the consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will
>>>> oscillate for a while
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> just another 5 - 10 years - no big deal
>>
>> Sarcasm aside, it could easily be 5 years to stabilize if we resolve the
>> problem now by allowing the New York Bankers and Wall Street to suffer
>> the consequences of their gambling. Or it could be decades, like the
>> Great Depression, if we subsidize their past gambling debts.
>
> Not really, but it could be a lot like Japan if we don't.

I consider that a rosy scenario and believe it will be much worse if the
$700,000,000,000.00 is dedicated and proves insufficient to do the job.
At that point the both remaining options are even worse.

Japan has been suffering for what, 15 years trying to cope with bank debt?
I don't consider that a good alternative either, pretending that it
doesn't exist.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$700,000,000,000.00 Not no but "HELL NO!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 5:42 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:56:00 -0400, clams_casino wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:31:51 -0400, clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
>>>>$700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face
>>>>the consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for
>>>>a while
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>just another 5 - 10 years - no big deal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Sarcasm aside, it could easily be 5 years to stabilize if we resolve the
>>problem now by allowing the New York Bankers and Wall Street to suffer
>>the consequences of their gambling.
>>
>>
> Firstly, there are no more investment banks.

Irrelevant, the money is still going to New York Banks and Wall Street
Tycoons. Besides, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

> Secondly, the rescue is an attempt to help business - especially small
> businesses - to stay afloat, making payroll and holding inventory.

Then it fails the smell test already. The money isn't going to small
businesses but to big banks.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$700,000,000,000.00 Not no but "HELL NO!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Toilet Water Supply Valve Leak - A Repair Guide
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c310290cea8dc8c2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 3:26 pm
From: Paul Michaels

My home was built in 1984 so I wasn't surprised when water started
leaking from behind the toilet in one of the bathrooms.

Upon further examination, I figured out that the water was leaking
from the valve stem (knob you screw in/out to turn on/off the water)
that is attached to the toilet water supply valve assembly.

Not including the trip to Home Depot, it took about 30 minutes and $5
to replace the old part and stop the leak.

I took pictures of the procedure and wrote up a quick guide to assist
anyone else dealing with this common problem.

Here's the gallery -
http://www.paulstravelpictures.com/Toilet-Water-Supply-Valve-Leak-Repair-Guide/

I hope someone finds it useful.

Cheers,
Paul Michaels
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 5:26 pm
From: Al Bundy

Paul Michaels wrote:
> My home was built in 1984 so I wasn't surprised when water started
> leaking from behind the toilet in one of the bathrooms.
>
> Upon further examination, I figured out that the water was leaking
> from the valve stem (knob you screw in/out to turn on/off the water)
> that is attached to the toilet water supply valve assembly.
>
> Not including the trip to Home Depot, it took about 30 minutes and $5
> to replace the old part and stop the leak.
>
> I took pictures of the procedure and wrote up a quick guide to assist
> anyone else dealing with this common problem.
>
Looks like just another would-be scammer with a plan to drive traffic
to his site by pasting stuff that can easily be found on the Internet,
which is where he probably found it.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 6:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Michaels wrote:
>> My home was built in 1984 so I wasn't surprised when water started
>> leaking from behind the toilet in one of the bathrooms.
>>
>> Upon further examination, I figured out that the water was leaking
>> from the valve stem (knob you screw in/out to turn on/off the water)
>> that is attached to the toilet water supply valve assembly.
>>
>> Not including the trip to Home Depot, it took about 30 minutes and $5
>> to replace the old part and stop the leak.
>>
>> I took pictures of the procedure and wrote up a quick guide to assist
>> anyone else dealing with this common problem.
>>
> Looks like just another would-be scammer with a plan to drive traffic
> to his site by pasting stuff that can easily be found on the Internet,
> which is where he probably found it.

You need to get your eyes tested, bad.

Fuck all that dont have a leak would bother to visit the web site.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Leaking Toilet Water Supply Valve Repair Guide
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/000aa2ce055d6a3b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 4:08 pm
From: Paul Michaels

My home was built in the early '80s so I wasn't surprised when water
started leaking from behind the toilet in one of the bathrooms.

Upon further examination, I figured out that the water was leaking
from the valve stem (knob you screw in/out to turn on/off the water)
that is attached to the toilet water supply valve assembly.

Not including the drive to Home Depot, it took about 30 minutes and
$5.00 to replace the old part and stop the leak.

I took pictures of the procedure and wrote up a quick guide to assist
anyone else dealing with this common problem.

Here's the album -
http://www.paulstravelpictures.com/Toilet-Water-Supply-Valve-Leak-Repair-Guide/index.html

I hope someone finds it useful.

Cheers,
Paul Michaels
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dual SIM car adaptor
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c0e044dcf88ff5cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 4:36 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

SoCalMike <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Raj <rj@rj.com> wrote

>>> Where can I buy something like this?
>>> http://www.duosim.com/instructions.html

>>> I am in Bay Area, California.

>>> Anyone seen anything like this is in a regular store?

>>> Don't want to order online.

>> More fool you. They cost peanuts to post so online makes sense even from HongKong.

> ive bought cellphone accessories on ebay that came right from hong kong. they arrived within days and were WAY cheaper
> than anything local.

Yeah, me too, I havent bought anything local for a hell of a long time now.

Havent even had any problem warranty wise. One pair of nail clippers I literally paid 1c for
had jaws that didnt close parallel. Expected the seller to just ignore me, but he was quite
happy to send another pair that were fine, and didnt even want the originals back.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Have you had a gas furnace installed in past 5 years? Need
feedbackplease....
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/770153a7f68a2569?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 5:45 pm
From: phil scott

On Oct 1, 2:25 pm, OhioGuy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> I ended up going with the Goodman brand, 80%, because I've heard too
> often that the circuitry boards on the 90+ % efficient models cost $300
> or more to replace. I've also been told that they need servicing more.
>
> Total cost for parts and labor to have two 70,000 BTU input Goodman
> 80% furnaces installed (one on each side of our place) - $2,300.
>
> We tested it out for a bit, and I was surprised with how much more
> warm air seemed to be coming out of the vents.

price was right....not cheap, but it was fair. Those will probably
go for about 10 years with no service what so
ever. ... then maybe a bad relay or hi limit switch will fail.. those
ar cheap, labor is reasonable for that.

If you want them to last longer, oil the motors and clean the blower
wheels after 5 years.. then oil the motors every year
or two after that. (they have removable oil plugs over each end
bell)..see what the owners manual says about that..

Phil scott

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Apparently 99 cents Only is really a buck now?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bf36b60ccb6c13ba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 2 2008 7:07 pm
From: Seerialmom

Not that I'll stop shopping there but 99 cents Only (sorry...normally
I'd use the actual cents symbol but I haven't figured out how to do
alt-0162 on this iMAC G3 :P) Anyway, the store still shows the big 99
Only but I must have missed the little .99 they stuck on some of the
signs inside. The register shows .99999 and that's how they're
staying under $1...sort of. All the shelf markings, however, still
show .99. According to this USA Today story it's the first time in 26
years they raised prices:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2008-09-08-99-cents-stores-raises-prices_N.htm

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

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

Friday, October 3, 2008

17 new messages in 9 topics - digest