Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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: Stamps
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/61b22661916aefaf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 10:04 am
From: Dave Garland

The Real Bev wrote:

> I'll have to get the Big Postmaster's approval for that -- the local
> jerk says you can't do that either.

Ask for Form 3533 "Application for Refund of Fees, Products and
Withdrawal of Customer Accounts". Or download the form from
http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps3533.pdf

Though personally, I just stick a label on the envelope over the one
that's printed on it, and use it to mail something. That not only
returns the value of the postage, but of the envelope too.

Dave

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 10:52 am
From: "Rod Speed"

The Real Bev wrote:

> I've been googling for over an hour for the USA Postal Regulations. What I'm trying to find out -- in chapter and
> verse -- is the legality of cutting unused stamps off envelopes and gluing them onto new envelopes.

Perfectly legal. What matters is whether its been used for mailing a letter or not.

> The intent, of course, is to use the stamps on the return envelopes that the stupid charities insist on enclosing in
> their begging letters.

Only the stupid donate to any charity thats stupid enough to do stuff like that.

> I went through this once before with our postmaster, who determined that this was indeed legal and that the asshole in
> the branch office owed me an apology, which I actually got.

You're meant to summarily execute the arsehole so no one else can get dudded, stupid.

> The problem has arisen again, and I am absolutely dumbfounded that I can't find the basic rules that a government
> agency must follow in its operations.

They need to be able to show you the regulation that says
that you cant move an unused stamp to a new envelope.

> I find a lot of possibly useful consumer information, but NOTHING about the matter in hand.

> I corresponded with the USPS 'help' facility, which was surprisingly
> speedy, but ultimately hit a dead end when the best the person could
> come up with was that I should steam off the old stamps and glue them on the new envelope and that I couldn't tape
> them on (which has been true for a long time).

Thats because the stamp wont stamp the stamp itself.

Nothing to stop you putting glue on the back of the stamp
and the remains of the old envelope you have cut it from.

> (S)he could cite no actual reference, so I figure his/her opinion is worth no more than mine.

You're wrong. It should be feasible to find where
it says that the stamp needs to be stampable.

> WTF? I can see why people go postal.

I doubt too many do that about something like this.

> Anybody have any ideas?

See above.

The other obvious approach is to put a label over the original address
on the envelope and reuse both the stamp and envelope, or if the
envelope is too small, stick the entire envelope to the new larger one.

> References? This ought to be basic information available to everyone,

It is, you're just looking for the wrong thing.

> but NOOOOOOO!

Fraid so.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 1:36 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:28:09 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've been googling for over an hour for the USA Postal Regulations. What I'm
>trying to find out -- in chapter and verse -- is the legality of cutting unused
>stamps off envelopes and gluing them onto new envelopes. The intent, of course,
>is to use the stamps on the return envelopes that the stupid charities insist on
>enclosing in their begging letters. I went through this once before with our
>postmaster, who determined that this was indeed legal and that the asshole in
>the branch office owed me an apology, which I actually got.
>
>The problem has arisen again, and I am absolutely dumbfounded that I can't find
>the basic rules that a government agency must follow in its operations. I find
>a lot of possibly useful consumer information, but NOTHING about the matter in hand.
>
>I corresponded with the USPS 'help' facility, which was surprisingly speedy, but
> ultimately hit a dead end when the best the person could come up with was that
>I should steam off the old stamps and glue them on the new envelope and that I
>couldn't tape them on (which has been true for a long time). (S)he could cite
>no actual reference, so I figure his/her opinion is worth no more than mine.
>
>WTF? I can see why people go postal.
>
>Anybody have any ideas? References? This ought to be basic information
>available to everyone, but NOOOOOOO!

Since the stamp is not canceled, it is an unused stamp with full face
value. The definition of it as a valid stamp has not changed based on
it being attached to anything. It doesn't matter what the stamp is
affixed to as long as it goes through the machinery.

The issue is that people will see a stamp that appears to be
uncanceled, but actually is, and attempt to use it. Any glued-on or
taped-on stamp is suspect. A clerk may refuse to honor a fraudulent
stamp or one that has been canceled, however it appears that neither
the post offfice manual nor the law address the issue of using a valid
stamp that has been affixed in error to an incorrect envelope.

Postal Manual:
<http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:TbFVWdyzTlwJ:www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/pom/pomc6.pdf+recycling+uncanceled+postage+stamps&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us&client=firefox-a>

Fraud via duplication
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000501----000-.html>

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 5:31 pm
From: The Real Bev

Shawn Hirn wrote:

> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been googling for over an hour for the USA Postal Regulations. What
>> I'm trying to find out -- in chapter and verse -- is the legality of
>> cutting unused stamps off envelopes and gluing them onto new envelopes.
>> The intent, of course, is to use the stamps on the return envelopes that
>> the stupid charities insist on enclosing in their begging letters. I went
>> through this once before with our postmaster, who determined that this was
>> indeed legal and that the asshole in the branch office owed me an apology,
>> which I actually got.
>>
>> The problem has arisen again, and I am absolutely dumbfounded that I can't
>> find the basic rules that a government agency must follow in its
>> operations. I find a lot of possibly useful consumer information, but
>> NOTHING about the matter in hand.
>>
>> I corresponded with the USPS 'help' facility, which was surprisingly
>> speedy, but ultimately hit a dead end when the best the person could come
>> up with was that I should steam off the old stamps and glue them on the new
>> envelope and that I couldn't tape them on (which has been true for a long
>> time). (S)he could cite no actual reference, so I figure his/her opinion
>> is worth no more than mine.
>>
>> WTF? I can see why people go postal.
>
> As long as the stamps aren't postmarked, what's the problem?

In this case they had been postmarked -- FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE LETTER TO
WHICH I ATTACHED THEM. And that's another gripe...

> I have done it
> before. Don't peal off the stamps though. Use a scissor and cut around the
> stamp leaving a border of about a quarter inch on each side. Then tape the
> stamps to your envelop, but don't cover the actual stamp in tape, just the
> border. Why? The postal service won't mail your letter if the stamp, itself
> is covered with tape; I think it impedes their machinery from reading the
> stamp.
>
> If you have any questions about this, just call your local post office and
> ask.

I went in and asked. (1) You have to steam them off the old envelope and glue
them to the new; and (2) once they've been put on an envelope you can't put them
on another envelope. What's wrong with this picture?

I need to talk to somebody who is actually human, but I want an exact reference
before I call.

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 5:33 pm
From: The Real Bev

James wrote:

> Why not just put a address label over the address? That way you are
> recycling the envelope at the same time.
>
> BTW which charities use postage stamps? I just toss junk mail but it
> may be worth it to open for 42 cents specially if they're forever
> stamps.

The Paralyzed Veterans and one other. My mom called them to try to get them to
stop sending the letters, but it didn't help.

Tough luck, guys. The Man is wasting your money.

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 5:41 pm
From: larry

hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:28:09 -0800, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been googling for over an hour for the USA Postal Regulations. What I'm
>> trying to find out -- in chapter and verse -- is the legality of cutting unused
>> stamps off envelopes and gluing them onto new envelopes. The intent, of course,
>> is to use the stamps on the return envelopes that the stupid charities insist on
>> enclosing in their begging letters. I went through this once before with our
>> postmaster, who determined that this was indeed legal and that the asshole in
>> the branch office owed me an apology, which I actually got.

The receipt I got the other day from the local post office
when I bought stamps has this printed at the bottom:

"All sales final on stamps and postage.
Refunds for guaranteed services only.
Thank you for your business."

When I was a kid, I sent stamps as money for mail order
stuff. Occasionally also saw "no stamps please".

Guess that went the way of green stamps ;-)

Mother sent a lot of express parcels at Christmas, and would
get her full money back on about a third of them. Her rural
PA post office didn't have a chance of getting parcels into
the main stream in two days. The post office helper would
try to deny the claim, but the postmaster- "give her her
money back, it's not her fault we didn't get it there in
time."

-- larry/dallas

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 5:43 pm
From: The Real Bev

Dave Garland wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I'll have to get the Big Postmaster's approval for that -- the local
>> jerk says you can't do that either.
>
> Ask for Form 3533 "Application for Refund of Fees, Products and
> Withdrawal of Customer Accounts". Or download the form from
> http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps3533.pdf

I think that refers to advertising crap, but it's worth a shot. Thanks.

> Though personally, I just stick a label on the envelope over the one
> that's printed on it, and use it to mail something. That not only
> returns the value of the postage, but of the envelope too.

The bad part is that they usually use tiny envelopes. OTOH, I could stick the
whole envelope on another envelope -- I rarely send 5-page letters anyway.

I've already got a lot of cut-off stamps, though :-( Somebody paid the post
office for them and they damn well ought to provide the service that was paid for.

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 6:01 pm
From: The Real Bev

hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've been googling for over an hour for the USA Postal Regulations. What I'm
>>trying to find out -- in chapter and verse -- is the legality of cutting unused
>>stamps off envelopes and gluing them onto new envelopes. The intent, of course,
>>is to use the stamps on the return envelopes that the stupid charities insist on
>>enclosing in their begging letters. I went through this once before with our
>>postmaster, who determined that this was indeed legal and that the asshole in
>>the branch office owed me an apology, which I actually got.
>>
>>The problem has arisen again, and I am absolutely dumbfounded that I can't find
>>the basic rules that a government agency must follow in its operations. I find
>>a lot of possibly useful consumer information, but NOTHING about the matter in hand.
>>
>>I corresponded with the USPS 'help' facility, which was surprisingly speedy, but
>> ultimately hit a dead end when the best the person could come up with was that
>>I should steam off the old stamps and glue them on the new envelope and that I
>>couldn't tape them on (which has been true for a long time). (S)he could cite
>>no actual reference, so I figure his/her opinion is worth no more than mine.
>>
>>WTF? I can see why people go postal.
>>
>>Anybody have any ideas? References? This ought to be basic information
>>available to everyone, but NOOOOOOO!
>
> Since the stamp is not canceled, it is an unused stamp with full face
> value. The definition of it as a valid stamp has not changed based on
> it being attached to anything. It doesn't matter what the stamp is
> affixed to as long as it goes through the machinery.

We agree. Unfortunately the cow-like branch supervisor doesn't. The
helpdroids advise me to contact my local post office. You might think that the
only reason for dealing with helpdroids at all is because the local branch was
what you were having the problem with.

> The issue is that people will see a stamp that appears to be
> uncanceled, but actually is, and attempt to use it. Any glued-on or
> taped-on stamp is suspect. A clerk may refuse to honor a fraudulent
> stamp or one that has been canceled, however it appears that neither
> the post offfice manual nor the law address the issue of using a valid
> stamp that has been affixed in error to an incorrect envelope.

I hunted through the manual below without finding anything useful. I guess the
post office is now run, as far as the "Customer" is concerned, by word of mouth.

In my exchange of correspondence with the USPS helpdroids, each of their emails
contained the phrase "Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service®."
Every time I saw it I just wanted to slap somebody really hard. Most of the
time THERE IS NO CHOICE. How many businesses have been raided by the postal
inspectors and cited (arrested? tried? convicted?) for sending "first-class
mail" by Fedex or UPS?

> Postal Manual:
> <http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:TbFVWdyzTlwJ:www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/pom/pomc6.pdf+recycling+uncanceled+postage+stamps&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us&client=firefox-a>
>
> Fraud via duplication
> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000501----000-.html>

I (and everybody else) has spent far too much time on this problem. I'll just
have to phone the Big Kahoona and throw myself on his/her mercy.

--
Cheers,
Bev
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Only wimps use tape backup; *real* men just upload their
important stuff on FTP, and let the rest of the world
mirror it ;)" -- Linus Torvalds

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Homelessness only happens to other people"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b10dcae36d1aacb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 10:40 am
From: "Rod Speed"

ultimauw@gmail.com wrote
> Walter Bushell wrote
>> ultimauw@gmail.com wrote

>>> Sure your boss likes you?

>> That will not matter when word comes down from above.

Wrong, most obviously if you have retired and have had enough
of a clue to ensure that you have a fully paid off house to live in
and adequate savings and investments to live off.

>> Sinclair Lewis in _The Jungle_ described what happens when even
>> the best company falls up hard times and has to reduce employees.

Irrelevant if you have retired and have had enough of
a clue to ensure that you have a fully paid off house to
live in and adequate savings and investments to live off
or if you are competant enough to be one of those the
company cant do business without.

>> Among other things getting the heave ho from a company
>> you have invested yourself in is demoralizing to say the least.

Not when you have enough of a clue to be employable by someone else.

> Exactly!

Nope.

> And something like this can push anybody over the edge into drugs and alcohol.

Pig ignorant lie.

> The orthodox capitalist homeless bashers here
> don't seem to realise is it can also happen to them;

It cant with most of them. They arent stupid enough to
resort to drugs and alcohol even if they do get sacked.

> they live in a fantasy world where this stuff only happens to "other people",

It aint a fantasy world, its the real world. Most arent stupid
enough to resort to drugs an alcohol when they get sacked.

> and that they are somehow immune from the economy.

They dont have to be immune from the economy to not end up 'homeless', fool.

JUST have enough of a clue to ensure that whatever
happens with the economy, they cant end up 'homeless'

> Even the self employed here don't seem to realise that their businesses
> can fold as well for whatever reason and they too will be seeking work.

Plenty have enough of a clue to be employable in areas
that are needed whatever the state of the economy.

> A job search is stressful and demoralizing enough,

Only for unemployable fools like you.

> without the rotten economy we are in now.

Hordes can manage fine without a job for a while, child.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 3:02 pm
From: meow2222@care2.com

Rod Speed wrote:
> ultimauw@gmail.com wrote
> > Walter Bushell wrote
> >> ultimauw@gmail.com wrote

> > A job search is stressful and demoralizing enough,
>
> Only for unemployable fools like you.
>
> > without the rotten economy we are in now.
>
> Hordes can manage fine without a job for a while, child.

Yet so many choose to live with such a financial policy that they cant
hang on with no job. Weird, but true.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Eating fingernails and toenails!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/537609b9e6bc72eb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 10:51 am
From: "'nam vet."

In article
<daniel_t-31F824.07393008012009@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
> but when there is nothing left to take away.
> -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Some Recipes , people!
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Credit Unions rule!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ed4eab7c908e6797?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 10:53 am
From: "'nam vet."

In article
<georgewkspam-0E4946.10044004012009@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"'nam vet." <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote:

> Credit Unions To The Rescue
> by Broderick Perkins
>
> Been down to your friendly neighborhood credit union lately?
>
> You could find that elusive home loan you been unable to get anywhere
> else.
>
> Credit unions didn't need a bail out during the Great Depression, they
> didn't need federal intervention during the Savings & Loan debacle and
> they don't need government assistance now.
>
> In fact, right now, they are rolling out the red carpet for home loan
> borrowers.
>
> During the boom, credit unions avoided writing subprime home loans and
> other easy-money mortgages. They also shunned selling packages of
> mortgages to Wall Street moguls who packaged them into now low- to
> no-return securities.
>
> That means credit unions are relatively untainted by the credit squeeze
> and they have both money to burn and a sound business foundation that
> allows them to keep on lending.
>
> Instead of fearing the next Great Depression, member-owned credit unions
> are bracing for what could be their boom time in home loans and other
> financial services, now that banks and mortgage lenders are crashing and
> burning.
>
> Mortgage production among credit unions is small by comparison to banks
> and mortgage lenders, but their originations rose a whopping 10.1
> percent during the first half of 2008, according to the industry's
> federal regulator, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
> and ;
> Less than 1% of mortgage holders in Credit Unions are behind in payments.
> Google that!

ok
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save on Phone Calls
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81e9507772219fb7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 12:32 pm
From: SMS

ares wrote:
> It seems that Tracfone is fine for me as well. The page seems to call it an
> expensive plan. When I add a 60 minute card, for $20, it give you 90 days
> of service. You can get the phones pretty cheaply. One of them for some
> reason, receives text messages at no charge. We have a few of these phones.
> If as they say the value of the service is $6/month, then the minutes are
> around $.0335. There are double minute plans and yearly plans as well,
> promotional and bonuses every now and then. Hm, funny but when I figure it
> for the higher minutes cards, the minutes come out to closer to .10 per
> minute. I suppose you just have to play around with the numbers to check.
> It's .3 units per text otherwise. But at least I'm not married to some
> monthly plan for over $30 per month.
> ares

On some older phones incoming texting is free. This was also the case
back in the TDMA days. Keep those old phones!

CallingMart sells the 400 minute Tracfone card for $94.09 after an
additional 3% discount with the code "ca3p-1207" (occasionally they have
7% discounts). A 400 minute card doubled to 800 minutes costs $94.09/800
minutes = 11.8¢/minute. If you find a bonus deal, it also brings the
price down. I.e. www.wirelessrefill.com offers 300 bonus minutes on the
$100/400 minute/365 day card, so you get 1100 minutes if you have DB4L
(Double Minutes for Life) which would bring the cost down to
9.1¢/minute, which is less than T-Mobile.

Yes, Tracfone is still cheaper than a monthly plan for light cell phone
users, but if you're really looking to cut your phone costs to the
minimum then Tracfone isn't the best option.

The chart on "http://prepaiduswireless.com/" entitled " How Many Minutes
Per Month Can You Get for Different Monthly Amounts of Money?" is useful
for comparing providers, as is the chart entitled "How Much do Different
Numbers Of Minutes Per Month Cost You on Each Provider?"

The big draw for Tracfone is that the handsets are so cheap, but it's
more expensive than the competition both in per month costs and per
minute costs.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: incandescent/flourescent light bulbs peacefulspirits
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc85c28e5fe822ff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 3:20 pm
From: peacefulspirits

Can someone tell me about the overall comparison costing of
incandescent/fluorescent light bulbs taking into account:

Component resources used in each. It seems to me that a fluorescent
light bulb has ten or more times of the world's diminishing mineral
resources in its manufacture.

Cost of proper disposal (just added to the rates?)

Cost of transport of (20 times?) heavier item.

Any health issues?

It's just that I would like a full comparison rather than a
comparative cost of only while it is plugged into the light socket

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 3:20 pm
From: peacefulspirits

Can someone tell me about the overall comparison costing of
incandescent/fluorescent light bulbs taking into account:

Component resources used in each. It seems to me that a fluorescent
light bulb has ten or more times of the world's diminishing mineral
resources in its manufacture.

Cost of proper disposal (just added to the rates?)

Cost of transport of (20 times?) heavier item.

Any health issues?

It's just that I would like a full comparison rather than a
comparative cost of only while it is plugged into the light socket

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 5:15 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In <0df8ebe2-c115-49ec-9e6d-39f79039987c@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
peacefulspirits wrote:

>Can someone tell me about the overall comparison costing of
>incandescent/fluorescent light bulbs taking into account:
>
>Component resources used in each. It seems to me that a fluorescent
>light bulb has ten or more times of the world's diminishing mineral
>resources in its manufacture.

The ballast housing is plastic, but I don't see the world running out of
silicon or raw materials for glass.

>Cost of proper disposal (just added to the rates?)

Check www.lamprecycle.org - probably free. I heard that Home Depot is
now accepting dead CFLs.

>Cost of transport of (20 times?) heavier item.

A CFL weighs maybe 2-3 times as much as an incandescent does.

Most of the time at least, retail prices include transportation and
other costs and profits and taxes on the companies making and hauling
them.

>Any health issues?

They have a trace of mercury and the phosphors are probably not good to
eat. However, they do reduce need to burn coal.

>It's just that I would like a full comparison rather than a
>comparative cost of only while it is plugged into the light socket

I would add the purchase price (often near or under $5 apiece) and the
operating cost.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Survivalism Retail Style
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 4:02 pm
From: phil scott

On Jan 7, 8:14 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> news:25c03426-3cdf-4836-b02e-a182ab566c6a@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 2:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold
> > > > inventory.
> > > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > > > time
> > > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > > forever.
> > > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > > > price
> > > > they paid for it.
>
> > > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means
> > > > that
> > > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Ed Huntress
>
> > > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> > >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> > >Baby Boomers.
> > >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> > I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> > >...or join you
> > >under your selected bridge?
>
> > Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through a
> > recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> > >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> > >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> > Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> > would default now.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >I dont want to start an argument. It seems though that in 1901 govt
> >costs and taxes were under 1% of national production...now its 48%...
> >so its a different mess we are looing at. Govts do default. none in
> >history has lasted longer than 300 years, most last more than 200
> >though... then collapse, loose empire etc and become shadows of their
> >former selves.
> >Phil scott
>
> I don't know where the 48% comes from, Phil. OECD says our total taxes --
> federal, state, and local -- are 28% of GDP, which makes our total taxes/GDP
> the third-lowest in the developed world.
>
> Where are you getting the 48%? Maybe I could start by looking into that.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

those are spun numbers for govt. nany books document the figure is
dramatically larger.. same spin seen with the govts bogus cpi indexes

govt GDP figures are spun the worst...by huge margines, same lies were
seen in the recent mortgage disaster, for instance govt purchases
are included in GDP, such as buying steel from china... added to our
GDP, as that steel was part of the 'production'...same with hamburger
flippers and poodle groomers. not all of that
is real goods production... nor are say 'banking products'

we know about the glorious banking products now.

Phil scott

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 4:04 pm
From: phil scott

On Jan 7, 9:21 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 8:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cde96683-faa9-411f-813f-632ae226f122@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 7, 4:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold
> > > > > inventory.
> > > > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > > > > time
> > > > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > > > forever.
> > > > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > > > > price
> > > > > they paid for it.
>
> > > > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means
> > > > > that
> > > > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > > > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ed Huntress
>
> > > > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > > > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > > > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > > > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > > > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > > > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > > > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > > > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > > > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > > > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > > > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > > > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > > > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > > > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > > > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > > > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > > > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> > > >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> > > >Baby Boomers.
> > > >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> > > I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> > > >...or join you
> > > >under your selected bridge?
>
> > > Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through a
> > > recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> > > >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> > > >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> > > Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> > > would default now.
>
> > > --
> > > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I have lived through many recessions Ed so this is the typical
> > "Chicken Little" post.
>
> > This is the worse this Country has seen since the Great Depression.
>
> > Now repeat that previous sentence until it sinks in.
>
> > Based on every data point I can find, that is the truth...no amount of
> > spin can change that.
>
> > If you have different data that says otherwise...let's see it.
>
> > This Government can easily default...simply by our creditors refusing
> > to fund any further US debt.
>
> > ==============================================
> > Ed:
>
> > The United States, of all countries, cannot default. Most sovereign
> > countries cannot default, but especially the US, because virtually all of
> > the obligations against us are in US dollars.
>
> > All we have to do to avoid default is to print money.
>
> > Now, nobody with serious financial responsibility, including foreign central
> > banks and private investors, thinks that's going to happen. That's why they
> > bought our Treasury bills at 0% interest.
>
> > ==============================================
> > TMT:
>
> > Take a hard look at China...they are already taking action to save
> > their own.
>
> > Are you worrying about the Chinese worker? Well they are not worrying
> > about you either.
>
> > And if you don't think the Government can default..well wasn't the SEC
> > supposed to be policing the markets? Weren't Freddie and Fannie Mac
> > supposed to be responsible? Wasn't AIG supposed to be covering
> > everyone's back? Hell I can go on and on and on....the system is
> > broken...really broken.
>
> > ===============================================
> > Ed:
>
> > What the hell does that have to do with the government defaulting?
>
> > ===============================================
> > TMT:
>
> > If you think SS is working properly and covered financially, you have
> > been drinking the Republican koolaid.
>
> > ===============================================
> > Ed:
>
> > SS is working properly. No, it isn't covered financially. To do that, you
> > raise payroll taxes. And not by that much, actually.
>
> > Next question, Mr. Little? <g>
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL...yeah Ed...everything is fine...no one has lost any money...all
> those TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS gone won't make a difference...nor will
> the MULTI YEAR TRILLION decifits in your children's future.
>
> And that money is continuing to be thrown at Freddie/Fannie, AIG, the
> bank, the car companies....no problem.
>
> And those 693,000 jobs just lost in December...well they don't matter
> either.
>
> LOL..tell you what...why don't we just sit back and see who might be
> more right in 2009-10?
>
> Until then we can just agree to disagree. ;<)
>
> TMT
>
> TMT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

dear TMT. even though you have too many tools you are a very bright
man

Phil scott

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 4:07 pm
From: phil scott

On Jan 8, 4:37 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> phil scott wrote:
> > It seems though that in 1901 govt
> >costs and taxes were under 1% of national production...now its 48%...
>
> Care to provide a reference? From what I've read, it's closer to 33%.

figures vary, depends on who's book your read, and to what degree
things like inflation and higher quality of life fact in

I wouldnt contest a 33% figure though... thats up 3,300 percent since
1901... pointing out the same level of disaterous govt bloat.

My guess though is that real figure would be way above 50%... since
our GDP figures currently include poodle grooming etc...not actual
goods production, which is in decline.

Phil scott

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 4:19 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"phil scott" <phil@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:f34d29c7-072d-4c33-a3c5-ee9cc858f852@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 8:14 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> news:25c03426-3cdf-4836-b02e-a182ab566c6a@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 2:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold
> > > > inventory.
> > > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do
> > > > from
> > > > time
> > > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > > forever.
> > > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double
> > > > the
> > > > price
> > > > they paid for it.
>
> > > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means
> > > > that
> > > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a
> > > > profit.
>
> > > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Ed Huntress
>
> > > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> > >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> > >Baby Boomers.
> > >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> > I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> > >...or join you
> > >under your selected bridge?
>
> > Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through
> > a
> > recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> > >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> > >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> > Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> > would default now.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >I dont want to start an argument. It seems though that in 1901 govt
> >costs and taxes were under 1% of national production...now its 48%...
> >so its a different mess we are looing at. Govts do default. none in
> >history has lasted longer than 300 years, most last more than 200
> >though... then collapse, loose empire etc and become shadows of their
> >former selves.
> >Phil scott
>
> I don't know where the 48% comes from, Phil. OECD says our total taxes --
> federal, state, and local -- are 28% of GDP, which makes our total
> taxes/GDP
> the third-lowest in the developed world.
>
> Where are you getting the 48%? Maybe I could start by looking into that.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>those are spun numbers for govt. nany books document the figure is
>dramatically larger.. same spin seen with the govts bogus cpi indexes

Yeah, I hear you. Now, where did you spin, er, get your numbers?

>govt GDP figures are spun the worst...by huge margines, same lies were
>seen in the recent mortgage disaster, for instance govt purchases
>are included in GDP, such as buying steel from china... added to our
>GDP, as that steel was part of the 'production'...

Nope. It doesn't work that way. Imports are subtracted from GDP.

>same with hamburger
>flippers and poodle groomers. not all of that
> is real goods production... nor are say 'banking products'

Nobody said it was goods production. GDP is the sum of all the goods and
services produced in the country in a year.

>we know about the glorious banking products now.

Tell us where you get that "48%." I'm curious.

--
Ed Huntress

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 4:26 pm
From: phil scott

On Jan 8, 4:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f34d29c7-072d-4c33-a3c5-ee9cc858f852@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 8:14 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:25c03426-3cdf-4836-b02e-a182ab566c6a@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 7, 2:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold
> > > > > inventory.
> > > > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do
> > > > > from
> > > > > time
> > > > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > > > forever.
> > > > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double
> > > > > the
> > > > > price
> > > > > they paid for it.
>
> > > > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means
> > > > > that
> > > > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a
> > > > > profit.
>
> > > > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ed Huntress
>
> > > > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > > > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > > > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > > > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > > > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > > > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > > > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > > > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > > > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > > > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > > > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > > > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > > > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > > > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > > > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > > > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > > > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> > > >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> > > >Baby Boomers.
> > > >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> > > I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> > > >...or join you
> > > >under your selected bridge?
>
> > > Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through
> > > a
> > > recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> > > >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> > > >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> > > Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> > > would default now.
>
> > > --
> > > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >I dont want to start an argument. It seems though that in 1901 govt
> > >costs and taxes were under 1% of national production...now its 48%...
> > >so its a different mess we are looing at. Govts do default. none in
> > >history has lasted longer than 300 years, most last more than 200
> > >though... then collapse, loose empire etc and become shadows of their
> > >former selves.
> > >Phil scott
>
> > I don't know where the 48% comes from, Phil. OECD says our total taxes --
> > federal, state, and local -- are 28% of GDP, which makes our total
> > taxes/GDP
> > the third-lowest in the developed world.
>
> > Where are you getting the 48%? Maybe I could start by looking into that.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >those are spun numbers for govt. nany books document the figure is
> >dramatically larger.. same spin seen with the govts bogus cpi indexes
>
> Yeah, I hear you. Now, where did you spin, er, get your numbers?
>
> >govt GDP figures are spun the worst...by huge margines, same lies were
> >seen in the recent mortgage disaster, for instance govt purchases
> >are included in GDP, such as buying steel from china... added to our
> >GDP, as that steel was part of the 'production'...
>
> Nope. It doesn't work that way. Imports are subtracted from GDP.
>
> >same with hamburger
> >flippers and poodle groomers. not all of that
> > is real goods production... nor are say 'banking products'
>
> Nobody said it was goods production. GDP is the sum of all the goods and
> services produced in the country in a year.
>
> >we know about the glorious banking products now.
>
> Tell us where you get that "48%." I'm curious.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ed, this has to end our conversation.. it seems that others on the ng
have you identified as a crank and now it is apparent to me... my
final remark on the
48% number is that it cannot possibly be accurate, no stats are, its
just one of the more common approximations...and there is much
published on that you can surely find and read for yourself

goodby'

Phil scott

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 6:11 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"phil scott" <phil@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:355404a9-7d98-48a9-88c8-d79c99594e79@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

>Ed, this has to end our conversation.. it seems that others on the ng
>have you identified as a crank and now it is apparent to me... my
>final remark on the
>48% number is that it cannot possibly be accurate, no stats are, its
>just one of the more common approximations...and there is much
>published on that you can surely find and read for yourself

Yes, I can read it, Phil, and I have, for several decades now. And I've
written about it, and I have over 350 published articles and chapters of
three books, mostly on machining and the business of manufacturing,
including world trade, taxation, and related subjects.

What I know is that your number is baloney. That's not unusual here,
especially when, as I notice now, this message is cross-posted. You can't
provide a source for your number because it's a crock. We could have
discussed it and you would see *why* it's baloney, but you apparently would
rather believe your fantasies than find out what the truth of it is.

>goodby'

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Phil.

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Betsy Hart column: "Staying off the hedonic treadmill"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cae437bd156d05e6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 5:03 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com

If you want to leave her a comment, you can do so at www.betsysblog.com.

She's a divorced mother of four. (The oldest, her son, is 14, I
think.)

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/betsyhart/1367236,CST-FTR-HART08.article

First third of article........

At a recent gathering of my large family (I'm the youngest of five
kids), nieces, nephews, etc., my brother called out at the top of his
voice, "What kind of ice cream is it?" And as always, laughter ensued,
especially from our good-natured dad.

You see years ago (and I mean years ago) when I was about 5, my family
had just finished eating dinner and my mom announced there was ice
cream for desert. One of my brothers made the mistake of asking, "What
flavor is it?" That lead to exclamations of outrage from my dad. Why?
Because when he was a kid during the Great Depression, they were lucky
to get ice cream at all, darn it! It was the biggest treat imaginable!
In fact most of the time the only way to get it was to make it
themselves and no one, especially not a kid, would have even dreamed
of asking what flavor the ice cream was!

And on it went. I'm not sure if any one of us ever did get ice cream
that night, but I do know that we learned a lot about the history of
ice cream, at least in our father's life. We also learned that my
parents thought we kids were ungrateful. Imagine that.

Flash forward, and things have changed - for the worse........

(snip)

Lenona.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the news: "Porn Industry: We Also Need a Bailout"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f0b0f392a2708c10?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 5:32 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com

http://www.poligazette.com/2009/01/08/porn-industry-we-also-need-a-bailout/

I heard about this on the news this morning - I think this is the
right video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYjt9DgktI

More articles:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1287555173

"According to Flynt, his real motivation wasn't necessarily the $5
billion, but making a point about Washington D.C. 'I'm dead serious
about making Congress look stupid, you know. I think the American
people should have more to say about those bailouts and how they're
spending their money. These politicians have never handled our money
wisely since I have been in this world and I don't think they're gonna
start now,' Flynt said."

Reminds me of Falwell vs. Flynt, or as one commentator put it, Laurel
vs. Hardy.

Lenona.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Divorcing husband demands kidney back from cheating wife (or payment)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a04de9d37a2e6d87?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 8 2009 6:00 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com

I heard about this this morning. Here's most of the AP article:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvJ5TlgzE010EKMRYOefrIy9xPDAD95IVKRG0

NY man demands estranged wife pay him for kidney
By FRANK ELTMAN – 10 hours ago

GARDEN CITY, N.Y. (AP) — A Long Island surgeon embroiled in a nearly
four-year divorce proceeding wants his estranged wife to return the
kidney he donated to her, although he says he'll settle for $1.5
million in compensation.

Dr. Richard Batista, a surgeon at Nassau University Medical Center,
told reporters at his lawyer's Long Island office Wednesday that he
decided to go public with his demand for kidney compensation because
he has grown frustrated with the negotiations with his estranged wife.

He claimed he has been prevented from seeing their children, ages, 8,
11 and 14, for months at a time.

"This is my last resort; I did not want to do this publicly," Batista
said.

He said he gave his kidney to Dawnell Batista, now 44, in June 2001.
She filed for divorce in July 2005, although he claims she began
having an extramarital affair 18 months to two years after receiving
the kidney transplant, his attorney, Dominick Barbara said.

Douglas Rothkopf, the attorney representing Dawnell Batista, did not
return telephone calls seeking comment.

Matrimonial attorneys were quick to shoot down any possibility Batista
would succeed.

"I've been in this business over 40 years and I've never heard of
that," said Seymour J. Reisman, a Long Island divorce lawyer. "It's
not marital property, not a marital asset you can put a price tag on."

Manhattan attorney Susan Moss said, "The good doctor is out of luck
and out a kidney. This is similar to cases where a husband wants to be
repaid for the cost of breast implants and the such. Our judges are
not willing to value such assets, so to speak............"

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&nolr=1&q=kidney+batista&btnG=Search
(more articles)

I expect this to show up in GlennSacks.com soon, mainly because while
it MAY be safe to say that Batista doesn't really expect any judge to
take him seriously, at least he's willing to go public and risk having
most strangers laugh at him in exchange for a lot of sympathy from
divorced dads - and Sacks tends to admire men like that.

Lenona.

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

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

Thursday, January 8, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: