http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* "Told Ya this was coming - Laid-off worker kills CEO" (Q: Are scumbag
employers of illegal aliens NEXT?) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/702044f4857f4f23?hl=en
* Purchase All Available US Autos - 20 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* Warning re Biodegradable Plastic Bags - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ad8779c939ff4750?hl=en
* Prime Rate at 3.25%, CD rate at 5.3%. Is it worth tapping a Prime - 0.5%
HELOC and buying CDs? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0685200d3fdf48b4?hl=en
* overdraft - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Told Ya this was coming - Laid-off worker kills CEO" (Q: Are scumbag
employers of illegal aliens NEXT?)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/702044f4857f4f23?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 3:11 pm
From: kim
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:40:19 -0800 (PST), mugglefuggle@googlemail.com
wrote:
>Ha ha ha! There are 11 million "illegal aliens" in the USA. You
>propose to kick them all out? The Government is broke; it doesn't have
>the money to hire buses and trains. Nor does it have the wit and skill
>to find many of the 11 million.
>
>And if it did, the US economy would shut down for good; crops would
>rot on the farms. A new Dust Bowl, a new Great Depression would ensue.
>
>Ha ha ha!
Keep laughing while the government blows your money ....
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=6472915&page=1
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Purchase All Available US Autos
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 3:12 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <h-GdnV5DfvdE79TUnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> In article <d81917a8-1c6d-4a9e-a0d3-bb252bf5036e@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 13, 5:18=A0pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am - Does that include all the US plants run by Honda, Toyota, BMW,
> >> Mercedes, etc? =A0 Does that figure also include all the car dealers who
> >> provide more jobs than the car companies?
> >
> >Those are all foreign cars.. All of the benefits of manufacturing go
> >back to their parent countries - not the US.
>
> Well, except for all the wages and salaries of all the plant workers,
> and the US suppliers of material to the plant, and the US
> transporation providers servicing the plant, and the US utilities
> providing power and water to the plant... I guess you're pretty much
> off base here.
"Here"? Where has ever been on base?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 3:15 pm
From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
In article <gi8th4$p2e$1@news.motzarella.org>, Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>Yeah, I heard of Billary being appointed to Secretary of State, and all I
>could think is...when will we have World War 3....2009? or 2010? -Dave
It IS a time-honored way of ending a depression.
And I doubt Hillary is going to allow Bill any input into anything except
perhaps the female State Department employees. (keeps him out of her
hair...)
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 3:18 pm
From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
In article <gi939n$s92$1@news.motzarella.org>, Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>Of course, both GM and Chrysler will cease to exist without Chapter 11. So
>there ya go. The auto execs. claim that GM and Chrysler will cease to exist
>soon.
>
>> And you think that all GM worldwide operations will just melt away?
>
>Oh, some might be absorbed into other corporations like Toyota or Kia maybe?
>Try buying a Chevy anything brand new in 2010. You won't be able to find
>one.
Somebody will buy the Chevy brand. Maybe Cherry or Tata?
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 3:26 pm
From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
In article <gi9kug$js5$1@news.motzarella.org>, Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>Are you assuming that if a few large banks failed, that they all would fail?
>That assumption is wrong, but it's also beside the point. Several of the
>banks that were bailed out deliberately fended off hostile takeover bids and
>not-so-hostile merger offers, while waiting to be bailed out, because they
>knew that they would be bailed out soon. In other words, if Congress hadn't
>thrown money at them, they wouldn't have even failed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK, so a
>few names would have changed here and there. Big fucking deal.
And then there's the odd Wachovia/Citibank/Wells Fargo dance, where
the bailout-free merger offer beat the bailout-enabled merger offer.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 3:35 pm
From: russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
In article <6qt4l9Fdsu0rU2@mid.individual.net>, sambo <sambo@yhtr.com> wrote:
>
>That doesnt mean that GM or chrysler exists, just that those NAMES do, stupid.
That's all that exists of Chrysler now. There's no corporate
continuity through the Daimler takeover and subsequent sale to Cerberus.
As for General Motors, the corporation... who, besides GM share and
bond holders, cares if it ceases to exist? If someone (or multiple
somoenes) is making cars under the various GM marques, why does it
matter if those companies aren't today's GM?
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 5:28 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:06:06 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:57:06 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, we're talking about not having a military of our own,
>
>
>No we're not. We're talking about having a properly sized military
>equipped for actual threats.
We have a rich country with vast natural resources and a valuable
infrastructure. What's the proper size military to protect it?
>
>> and simply
>>repelling invasions with a militia. If China wanted to, they could fly all
>>their troops over on 747's, and would only have to soften the place up first by
>>killing the population with aforementioned neutron bombs.
>
>So if they killed us all, who would buy their Happy Meal toys?
Aw, they just burn the bodies to fuel the incinerators and make themselves
electricity.
>If the US didn't pose such a danger to other coutries we wouldn't have
>much to worry about.
Ha! The rich guy in any neighborhood may be the nicest guy in the neigborhood,
but is still likely to have alarms, fences, dogs, and some guns. People don't
want to attack him because they're afraid of him, its because they want what he
has.
== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 5:30 pm
From: "sambo"
Matthew Russotto wrote
> sambo <sambo@yhtr.com> wrote
>>> 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.
>> That doesnt mean that GM or chrysler exists, just that those NAMES do, stupid.
> That's all that exists of Chrysler now.
Thats overstating it. There is still some of the ex Chrysler factorys etc remaining.
> There's no corporate continuity through the Daimler takeover and subsequent sale to Cerberus.
Yes, but that isnt true of everything that Chrysler originally owned.
> As for General Motors, the corporation... who, besides
> GM share and bond holders, cares if it ceases to exist?
Quite a bit of the rest of the country, most obviously with the dealers etc and owners of GM cars
who will see the value of the cars drop dramatically and the availability of parts get worse etc.
> If someone (or multiple somoenes) is making cars under the various GM marques,
That wont necessarily happen if GM is allowed to go bust.
> why does it matter if those companies aren't today's GM?
Essentially it makes parts availability much worse, and the value of their cars in spades.
== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 5:31 pm
From: Dave Head
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:43:49 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:25:32 -0500, edward ohare
>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:59:10 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:01:46 -0500, edward ohare
>>>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From where? By who?
>>>>
>>>> Why, from any number of places.
>>>>
>>>> China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million
>>>> soldiers into a few thousand troop transports, steam across the
>>>> Pacific, land in California, Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and
>>>> pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so citizens, and claim the
>>>> land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the US Navy to
>>>> bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome the
>>>> citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought the US military planned based on enemy capability. If this
>>> is what you've learned from your employment, we need a thorough
>>> military housecleaning.
>>>
>>> (Pointing out here that the China at this point isn't capable of an
>>> opposed landing in Taiwan.)
>
>> Anyway, we're talking about not having a military of our own,
>
>Nope, not even New Zealand is that stupid, even tho they could get away with that.
Switzerland does it. They weren't touched even during WW2.
>> and simply repelling invasions with a militia.
>
>That approach got rid of the english quite effectively.
Well, the French sorta helped out, big time.
>> If China wanted to, they could fly all their troops over on 747's,
>
>Pure drug crazed fantasy.
Yeah, as long as we've got the USAF and the USN, and the USA when they finally
get here. Scratch that - they'd never make it here.
>> and would only have to soften the place up first by killing the population with aforementioned neutron bombs.
>
>And see the whole of china turned to a crisp within the hour.
Not if we're not maintaining a military, eh?
== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 5:41 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:35:42 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old measuring system.
>
>"My Subaru". Dave, this isn't right. You want the government to take
>**my** money and use it to subsidize Detroit vehicles. But given free
>choice you spent **your** money on something else. So the rest of us
>should have to spend our money on things you won't spend yours on.
>
>Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
>with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
>Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
>owed:
>
>6 Chryslers
>1 Dodge
>1 Oldsmobile
>1 Chevrolet
>1 Plymouth
Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign, I bought it 'cuz it was AWD, and
'cuz it handled like it was on rails, and 'cuz it was scary-fast, and 'cuz I
found it in Denver for $23K. Flew in, drove it back over 2 days to Virginia in
2005. Passed a FEMA van heading to Katrina before Katrina hit.
My other car is a Jeep. Traded a Jeep just like it on this one.
== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 5:43 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <9v9jk4tegpjg87a6jpo2ab699lgm662367@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:43:49 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dave Head wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:25:32 -0500, edward ohare
> >> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:59:10 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:01:46 -0500, edward ohare
> >>>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From where? By who?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why, from any number of places.
> >>>>
> >>>> China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million
> >>>> soldiers into a few thousand troop transports, steam across the
> >>>> Pacific, land in California, Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and
> >>>> pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so citizens, and claim the
> >>>> land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the US Navy to
> >>>> bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome the
> >>>> citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I thought the US military planned based on enemy capability. If this
> >>> is what you've learned from your employment, we need a thorough
> >>> military housecleaning.
> >>>
> >>> (Pointing out here that the China at this point isn't capable of an
> >>> opposed landing in Taiwan.)
> >
> >> Anyway, we're talking about not having a military of our own,
> >
> >Nope, not even New Zealand is that stupid, even tho they could get away with
> >that.
>
> Switzerland does it. They weren't touched even during WW2.
Switzerland doesn't "do it" if what you mean is "not having a military";
not even close.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 5:46 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <6hajk4d3lkuhqnr26mh7p4t98srf29p24t@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:35:42 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old measuring system.
> >
> >"My Subaru". Dave, this isn't right. You want the government to take
> >**my** money and use it to subsidize Detroit vehicles. But given free
> >choice you spent **your** money on something else. So the rest of us
> >should have to spend our money on things you won't spend yours on.
> >
> >Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
> >with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
> >Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
> >owed:
> >
> >6 Chryslers
> >1 Dodge
> >1 Oldsmobile
> >1 Chevrolet
> >1 Plymouth
>
> Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign, I bought it 'cuz it was AWD, and
> 'cuz it handled like it was on rails, and 'cuz it was scary-fast, and 'cuz I
> found it in Denver for $23K. Flew in, drove it back over 2 days to Virginia
> in
> 2005. Passed a FEMA van heading to Katrina before Katrina hit.
>
> My other car is a Jeep. Traded a Jeep just like it on this one.
IOW, you bought the Subaru because it was the best vehicle for the money
-- the best value -- for you.
Tell us honestly: was there even a single big three vehicle which made
the short list in your mind...
...for any price?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 6:12 pm
From: "Daniel T."
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> Daniel T. <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 6:00 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > lorad <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 13, 7:20 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If we lose the auto industry in America, we also lose 1/7th
> > > > > of all US jobs. Think about that.
> > > >
> > > > Really? How do you figure that? What does "losing the auto
> > > > industry" even mean?
> > >
> > > Bumpkin, It means that yet more US money wiill be leaving the
> > > country.. Which is the primary reason why the US is now in an
> > > economic depression.
> >
> > Non-Sequitur. Let me ask another way... If GM declares bankruptcy,
> > but continues to build cars (just like the airlines declared
> > bankruptcy but continued to fly planes,) is it "lost"? And who is
> > it lost to? and how many jobs would that entail? I seriously doubt
> > that 1/7th of the US population works for three companies.
>
> That's because Dave just pulled a number out of his ass. Total motor
> vehicle parts and manufacturing jobs hit a high of about 1.3 million
> in 2000; it's now down to just over 800,000.
And not all of them would loose their job due to a chapter 13
restructuring...
> Add in the wholesalers at rougly 350,000, and the retailers at 1.9
> million,
Again, not all of them would loose their jobs...
== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 6:23 pm
From: "Dave"
>I don't think I much care for the companies or the unions, at least
>their "bad" sides of both being excessively greedy. However, I
>believe that _both_ of them, together and separately, will be able to
>make use of the monies provided to work together and find a better way
>of operating and reform to a point where they can make cars
>competitively again.
And I believe in unicorns. What's your fricking POINT?
>Think of providing the money to enhance America's future, rather than
>to enhance the lives of people you may not feel to kindly towards.
Putting ourselves deeper in debt for no reason at all is not going to
enhance anybody's lives.
>Kinda like dumping maggots into a wound - you hate the little vermin,
>but you "feed" them your dead flesh and you don't get gangrene and you
>don't lose your leg.
Except that giving money to GM and/or Chrysler would be CAUSING the wound in
the first place. -Dave
== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 6:26 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:46:11 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>In article <6hajk4d3lkuhqnr26mh7p4t98srf29p24t@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:35:42 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old measuring system.
>> >
>> >"My Subaru". Dave, this isn't right. You want the government to take
>> >**my** money and use it to subsidize Detroit vehicles. But given free
>> >choice you spent **your** money on something else. So the rest of us
>> >should have to spend our money on things you won't spend yours on.
>> >
>> >Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
>> >with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
>> >Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
>> >owed:
>> >
>> >6 Chryslers
>> >1 Dodge
>> >1 Oldsmobile
>> >1 Chevrolet
>> >1 Plymouth
>>
>> Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign, I bought it 'cuz it was AWD, and
>> 'cuz it handled like it was on rails, and 'cuz it was scary-fast, and 'cuz I
>> found it in Denver for $23K. Flew in, drove it back over 2 days to Virginia
>> in
>> 2005. Passed a FEMA van heading to Katrina before Katrina hit.
>>
>> My other car is a Jeep. Traded a Jeep just like it on this one.
>
>IOW, you bought the Subaru because it was the best vehicle for the money
>-- the best value -- for you.
>
>Tell us honestly: was there even a single big three vehicle which made
>the short list in your mind...
>
>...for any price?
Any price?
Corvette
Dodge Viper
Chrysler Crossfire
Mustang
Jeep Liberty
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Cadillac STS AWD
Dodge Magnum
and I want a Volt when it gets here.
== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 6:54 pm
From: edward ohare
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:41:06 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
>>with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
>>Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
>>owed:
>>
>>6 Chryslers
>>1 Dodge
>>1 Oldsmobile
>>1 Chevrolet
>>1 Plymouth
>
>Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign,
But you want my money spent subsidizing Detroit because they're
American. You're taking a government paycheck, using it to buy
foreign cars, and you want to take my paycheck and use it to subsidize
cars you won't buy.
Most of the people who have participated in this thread have shot
holes in your economic, business, and politcal arguments in favor of
saving Detroit. Even if you could come up with some arguments that
were right, you don't have the standing to make them. Do you have the
decency to remove yourself from this discussion?
== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:00 pm
From: edward ohare
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:28:19 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:06:06 -0500, edward ohare
><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:57:06 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, we're talking about not having a military of our own,
>>
>>
>>No we're not. We're talking about having a properly sized military
>>equipped for actual threats.
>
>We have a rich country with vast natural resources and a valuable
>infrastructure. What's the proper size military to protect it?
Depends on whether the evaulation is made based on reality or
irrational fears.
>>If the US didn't pose such a danger to other coutries we wouldn't have
>>much to worry about.
>
>Ha! The rich guy in any neighborhood may be the nicest guy in the neigborhood,
>but is still likely to have alarms, fences, dogs, and some guns. People don't
>want to attack him because they're afraid of him, its because they want what he
>has.
But if someone attacks and destroys that they have nothing.
== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:01 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <hibjk4lerrgc167hvc54mm3subpf655jsi@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:46:11 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <6hajk4d3lkuhqnr26mh7p4t98srf29p24t@4ax.com>,
> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
> >> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:35:42 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old measuring system.
> >> >
> >> >"My Subaru". Dave, this isn't right. You want the government to take
> >> >**my** money and use it to subsidize Detroit vehicles. But given free
> >> >choice you spent **your** money on something else. So the rest of us
> >> >should have to spend our money on things you won't spend yours on.
> >> >
> >> >Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
> >> >with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
> >> >Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
> >> >owed:
> >> >
> >> >6 Chryslers
> >> >1 Dodge
> >> >1 Oldsmobile
> >> >1 Chevrolet
> >> >1 Plymouth
> >>
> >> Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign, I bought it 'cuz it was AWD,
> >> and
> >> 'cuz it handled like it was on rails, and 'cuz it was scary-fast, and 'cuz
> >> I
> >> found it in Denver for $23K. Flew in, drove it back over 2 days to
> >> Virginia
> >> in
> >> 2005. Passed a FEMA van heading to Katrina before Katrina hit.
> >>
> >> My other car is a Jeep. Traded a Jeep just like it on this one.
> >
> >IOW, you bought the Subaru because it was the best vehicle for the money
> >-- the best value -- for you.
> >
> >Tell us honestly: was there even a single big three vehicle which made
> >the short list in your mind...
> >
> >...for any price?
>
> Any price?
>
> Corvette
> Dodge Viper
Neither are "AWD".
> Chrysler Crossfire
> Mustang
Neither AWD, nor handle like they're on "rails".
> Jeep Liberty
> Jeep Grand Cherokee
> Cadillac STS AWD
> Dodge Magnum
None handle like on rails, nor are they "scary fast".
> and I want a Volt when it gets here.
I think you missed the point entirely.
You wanted a car with a particular set of qualities and despite all of
the models made by the Detroit 3, *not one* car made by them comes close
to being a Subaru WRX.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:05 pm
From: edward ohare
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:31:00 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>And see the whole of china turned to a crisp within the hour.
>
>Not if we're not maintaining a military, eh?
Dave, I hate to break it to you, but the major function of the
military and its associated workers is to convince people its
important so it can retain its funding. Have you ever considered the
reason for the nuclear triad? Its not because its necessary. One
method of delivering long range nukes is sufficient. But it exists so
all the services could have their very own long range nukes!
Don't feel bad, Dave. We're not the first country that pissed away
its vitality on military spending.
== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:21 pm
From: edward ohare
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:01:00 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
>I think you missed the point entirely.
I think he tried to avoid it.
== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:21 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:01:00 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>In article <hibjk4lerrgc167hvc54mm3subpf655jsi@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:46:11 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6hajk4d3lkuhqnr26mh7p4t98srf29p24t@4ax.com>,
>> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
>> >> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:35:42 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old measuring system.
>> >> >
>> >> >"My Subaru". Dave, this isn't right. You want the government to take
>> >> >**my** money and use it to subsidize Detroit vehicles. But given free
>> >> >choice you spent **your** money on something else. So the rest of us
>> >> >should have to spend our money on things you won't spend yours on.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
>> >> >with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
>> >> >Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
>> >> >owed:
>> >> >
>> >> >6 Chryslers
>> >> >1 Dodge
>> >> >1 Oldsmobile
>> >> >1 Chevrolet
>> >> >1 Plymouth
>> >>
>> >> Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign, I bought it 'cuz it was AWD,
>> >> and
>> >> 'cuz it handled like it was on rails, and 'cuz it was scary-fast, and 'cuz
>> >> I
>> >> found it in Denver for $23K. Flew in, drove it back over 2 days to
>> >> Virginia
>> >> in
>> >> 2005. Passed a FEMA van heading to Katrina before Katrina hit.
>> >>
>> >> My other car is a Jeep. Traded a Jeep just like it on this one.
>> >
>> >IOW, you bought the Subaru because it was the best vehicle for the money
>> >-- the best value -- for you.
>> >
>> >Tell us honestly: was there even a single big three vehicle which made
>> >the short list in your mind...
>> >
>> >...for any price?
>>
>> Any price?
>>
>> Corvette
>> Dodge Viper
>Neither are "AWD".
Some "requirements" are no requirements when something else is outstanding on
someother way. I _like_ AWD. I would forego it for the styling and raw power
of a Corvette or Viper.
>> Chrysler Crossfire
>> Mustang
>
>Neither AWD, nor handle like they're on "rails".
Handling is cool, and AWD is great, but straight-line speed of the Mustang, and
the styling of the Crossfire _and_ the speed are hard to turn down.
>> Jeep Liberty
>> Jeep Grand Cherokee
>> Cadillac STS AWD
>> Dodge Magnum
>
>None handle like on rails, nor are they "scary fast".
The Magnum with the Hemi is pretty damn fast. The STS has a really powerful
engine, too. Everything there does _not_ handle all that well. I probably
couldn't have won the 2006 Tour Rally Championship with those, but would have
had an awesome ride the rest of the time I was driving it.
>> and I want a Volt when it gets here.
>
>I think you missed the point entirely.
Well, yeah, if you mean "instead of" a WRX. I meant "in addition to" a WRX. I
think the Vette or Viper would work instead of a WRX, as would a Crossfire. The
Magnum would probably work, too. Dunno. Haven't driven any of them, really.
>You wanted a car with a particular set of qualities and despite all of
>the models made by the Detroit 3, *not one* car made by them comes close
>to being a Subaru WRX.
Nope. They seem to not be all that ready to produce AWD or small engines with
turbos. There are cars that would work, tho.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Warning re Biodegradable Plastic Bags
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ad8779c939ff4750?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 3:13 pm
From: MSfortune@mcpmail.com
On Dec 17, 5:58 pm, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> MSfort...@mcpmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2:58 pm, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> If, like me, you like to keep a plastic bag or two in your jacket pocket
> >> in case you need one, *don't* try this with biodegradable plastic bags.
>
> >> You see, they are ... well, biodegradable, and after some period of time
> >> in your pocket, will degrade into a pile of tiny plastic confetti which
> >> manages to cling to just about everything.
>
> >> :-( :-(
>
> >> (My only consolation is that I assume that over time the various
> >> minuscule flakes I keep finding will degrade to something invisible to
> >> the human eye.)
>
> > Always wise to be skeptical of new technology, but I doubt you have a
> > problem. Unless you have sunlight and a compost pile in your pocket,
> > the bag may outlast you.
>
> You missed my point--I had a bag that degraded even without sunlight and
> a compost pile in my pocket.
>
> (It could be worse--I know someone who almost burned themselves carrying
> keys and a 9V transistor battery in their pocket when a key ended out
> resting on both terminals of the battery for a fair length of time. As
> it was, it melted the hard candy they had in that pocket!)
>
> --
> Evelyn C. Leeper
> Be braver. You cannot cross a chasm in two small jumps.
WOW. Maybe consider laundering that jacket some time.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Prime Rate at 3.25%, CD rate at 5.3%. Is it worth tapping a Prime - 0.5%
HELOC and buying CDs?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0685200d3fdf48b4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 6:15 pm
From: SMS
I have a HELOC that is set to prime - 0.5%, so it's 2.75% as of today. I
can buy a 7 year CD with a yield of 5.3%. So I could make 2.55% on $100K
or so, or $2500 per year. Other than the chance of the prime rate going
up to more than 5.8%, is there any risk in doing this? Of course I have
to pay the HELOC off from other funds since the CD money will be locked
up, but that's not a problem.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 6:53 pm
From: "JR Weiss"
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote...
>I have a HELOC that is set to prime - 0.5%, so it's 2.75% as of today. I can
>buy a 7 year CD with a yield of 5.3%. So I could make 2.55% on $100K or so, or
>$2500 per year. Other than the chance of the prime rate going up to more than
>5.8%, is there any risk in doing this? Of course I have to pay the HELOC off
>from other funds since the CD money will be locked up, but that's not a
>problem.
If you have "other funds," invest THEM in the CD, so you make the entire 5.3%!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: overdraft
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/338ed10d1ea2929c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 6:33 pm
From: phil scott
On Dec 17, 1:03 pm, tmcl...@searchmachine.com wrote:
> On Dec 17, 1:11 am, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 11:28 am, tmcl...@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.
>
> > thanks... its so easy to forget the actual facts of life with some
> > idiot lying clerk or bank manager telling you
> > that you 'need to open an acccount to cash checks'... that couldnt
> > possibly be true if commerce is to work as it does, its obvious... I
> > fell for that
> > baloney though myself.
>
> > in the future I wont....I will look at them as though they are
> > criminally insane sociopaths next time I try to run a customers check
> > through is own bank.
>
> > ... and I will have fun with that.
>
> > trust me.
>
> > and thanks again for point out the obvious.
>
> > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> Jesus, what is wrong with you? I am merely pointing out that it is
> illegal for a bank to refuse to cash a check written by one of its
> depositors, whether or not the check receiver is an account holder.
> The problem is that you can point out the illegality to the bank all
> day long, but the only person with legal standing to sue the bank for
> unlawful dishonor of a check is the person who wrote it, not the one
> holding the piece of paper. None of that makes it any less illegal,
> however.
> You need anger management classes. PLONK.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dang...I thought I was complinenting you and thanking you for the
insight... you have misread my reply
or confused it with someone elses?
Phil scott
==============================================================================
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
