Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 14 new messages in 12 topics

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 14 new messages in 12 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: truth in advertising
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3dde73ec7dbfb978?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 6:35 pm
From: albundy2@mailinator.com

On Feb 2, 7:11 pm, "Woody" <em...@munged.com> wrote:
> TV ad by a local furniture chain: "We've demanded lower prices from our
> suppliers to save you money!"
>
> Heh. As if. More like, "We'd love to charge you higher prices but then you
> won't buy, so we demanded lower prices from our suppliers in order to match
> the prices our competitors down the street charge so we can try to drive
> them out of business, and we still get to keep our profit margin."
>
> I've heard people can get arrested and flung in gaol for lying in an
> advertisement. Any lawyers out there wanna take on this case pro bono?
>
> Woody

The courts have pretty much ruled that you can say almost anything in
an ad. The wording is too subjective to pin them down. Even when the
claims are egregious, they often only have to cease and desist from
that particular add. I always like the Grapefruit 45 ads where you
were supposed to lost weight while you slept. The acid in the fruit
burned off the fat. Of course sleeping instead of eating all night
helps lose weight too.
My local food chain has an add very similar to that furniture ad of
yours. About the only cheap thing they sell is milk for some reason,
and a quality brand at that. I went in today just for milk and it was
$1.79 a gallon. I joked with the clerk that they were giving it away.
He pointed to the small print that said you had to purchase $10 to get
that price. Well, I wanted the milk regardless and went to the self
scanner. Low and behold, it gave me the $1.79 price for the single
purchase.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sakshat, Tata Nano, then Homes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc4a6e0878fb732e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 6:37 pm
From: albundy2@mailinator.com

On Feb 2, 5:44 pm, vjp2...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> India is producing the $1000 car, the Tata Nano.
> India is producing the $10 laptop, the Sakshat.
>
> Now India must produce the $10,000 house.
>
> India will save Western Civilisation! In the Succession outlined by
> Andrew Roberts and Walter Russell Meade, India will follow America,
> England, Britain, Byzantium and Alexander as the heart of
> globalisation.
>
> Let us know when they have some clean water to drink.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the great coffee wars
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81d399d7a689e8a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 6:43 pm
From: The Real Bev

SMS wrote:

> Vic Smith wrote:
>>
>> It is a well designed cup. What would bother me is if she actually paid +$3
>> for a cup of coffee, when she works hard for her money to go to school,
>> pays for her own car, insurance, etc. She opts for the free coffee here.
>> Good for her.
>
> She could buy an insulated thermal mug with the Starbucks logo, and maintain
> the pretense.

For $15? That's sick. They didn't have a gasket for the one I bought at a
yard sale so they exchanged it for a brand new one. Cheesy plastic. $15.

> Starbucks is about the socializing and the pretense. It was never about the
> coffee, just as McDonald's was never about the food.

Panera is nicer.

> If I do have the urge to spend $4 for an espresso drink, we have two
> independent coffee houses within walking distance (as well as one Peet's and
> four Starbucks). I keep thinking that $4 can still buy lunch at a Chinese
> restaurant.

--
Cheers, Bev
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already
earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by
mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
-- Albert Einstein

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Good place to buy wool diaper covers?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/212b318d6a5da024?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 6:45 pm
From: The Real Bev

OhioGuy wrote:

> My wife told me to bid on Ebay for wool diaper covers for our baby
> that will be arriving in about a month.
>
> I checked on Ebay, and only seem to find them sold as singles, and
> they seem to be running $15 or more.
>
> Can anyone suggest a place where you can buy several, and they are
> not treated as "specialty items" - with the associated high price?
>
> I thought we would be able to find them in a multi pack for about $8
> or $9 each, but so far I haven't found any luck.

Just for curious, why do you want such things? I would have killed for today's
disposable diapers 40 years ago!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the electronic cigarette: a good buy?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/424be27492308245?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 7:46 pm
From: NoSpamForMe@LousyISP.gov

albundy2@mailinator.com wrote:

>On Feb 2, 3:16 pm, "Woody" <em...@munged.com> wrote:
>> This is obviously addressed to smokers. Anti-smoking Nazis wishing to preach
>> on the evils of smoking are free to reply in another thread, preferably with
>> the header "I'm an anti-smoking Nazi."
>>
>> I'm wondering if electronic cigarettes are a good buy. Up here cigarettes
>> are quite expensive, plus you can't smoke indoors almost anywhere. If you
>> use an electronic cigarette, has there been a problem with you smoking it
>> on, for example, a long bus ride?

>It seems like a good idea for everyone, no second hand smoke and
>convenient for the smoker.

My last (real) cigarette was in August 08. I hated the "holier than
thou" preachings of the anti-smoking nazis and even though covered at
100% I refused the goody-two-shoes "help you stop smoking" products on
the market including the big guns from Pfizer (which seems to have
some side effects problems) and bupropion and the extortionately
expensive OTC products. All of them expect you to be a good boy and
stop this horrible habit. Well, f... them! I like smoking or at least
the effects of nicotine. Then, purely by chance, I was checking Google
for a nicotine inhalant... maybe someone made such a thing... and I
came across the e-cigs. Wow! All the good and none of the bad.

Does it work? Work in the sense of giving me the high/low relief from
stress that I seek. Yes! Absolutely! Some people claim the taste is
not the same but that doesn't worry me and in any event there are
dozens of different flavors and at least five levels of nicotine. You
have to experiment to find what is best for you.

Further you don't really inhale an e-cig like you do cigarettes. With
a cigarette you smoke for 7 to 10 min and then not again for an hour
or so (5 minutes if really stressed out <g>). With the e-cig you take
two or three puffs and then put it down. 10 minutes (or an hour)
later, another two or three puffs; Or, you can OD by just puffing away
continuously. The latter, if indulged at a high nicotine level, can
make you nauseous and even at lower levels can cause diarrhea. The
only serious bad health consequence is a rise of around 6mm of mercury
in BP but this is trivial.

What they don't want you to know is that there are a series of health
plusses for nicotine including the prevention of Parkinsonism and
raising the pain threshold. Look around for a medical book in the
endocrinology series called "Nicotinic Receptors" which explains (if
you have a degree in biology) what nicotine does in the body and why
it's beneficial. Nicotine is not the problem with smoking--the other
constituents of the smoke are.

>This is a new concept in smoking. It looks just like a cigarette. I
>wonder if some facilities would prevent using it out of ignorance of
>the fact that there is no smoke.

So far I haven't had a problem either on public transport, in a
supermarket, or a restaurant but I can well see the control freaks
freaking out. No one to control anymore. I even took a puff in the
PCP's examining room right in front of him. His eyes popped but then
when I explained he was most impressed and wrote down all the details.
He understood the anti-control freak advantages.

> Also, would there be liability on the
>e-smoker's behalf if an observer gave himself a hernia laughing when
>they discovered an adult using such a product. Will school children be
>allowed to use e-cigarettes?

They say they're not for sale to children but I don't see how this can
be legally enforced. Again the control freaks are probably working on
the issue now.

>I look forward to some genuine responses to these issues.

Personally I would prefer something that looks more like an asthma
inhaler. That way you would confuse the hell out of the anti-smoking
people. If you get one look around and buy the one with the blue
light. Also prices vary widely for essentially the same thing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reason Magazine: "Americans Are Saving More...As if Things Weren't Bad
Enough"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4385a9b919271f2e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 8:00 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes, the headline is tongue-in-cheek.
>
> http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131449.html
>
> By Jacob Sullum.
>
> First paragraph:
>
> "In November I noted how the recession has turned standard economic
> wisdom on its head, so that formerly good things, such as frugality,
> are bemoaned, while formerly bad things, such as unconstrained
> borrowing and spending, are recalled with nostalgia. The New York
> Times has a good example today, treating an increased saving rate as
> bad news.....

> (snip)

> .......Not until the 11th paragraph are we obliquely reminded that
> economists used to complain about how terrible Americans were at
> saving money, preferring instant gratification even when they couldn't
> afford it, thereby reducing the availability of capital so that the U.S.
> economy (and government) became dangerously dependent on foreign investors....."

Thats always been a mindless lie. The US home ownership rate was at
historic highs, and thats the saving all those had, the equity in their homes.

> And here's his November article:

> http://www.reason.com/news/show/130142.html

> BTW, Sullum is the author of "Saying Yes." From the back cover:

> "Jacob Sullum has produced a thoughtful, sane, and logical analysis of
> our drug laws. Is that even LEGAL?"
> -- Dave Barry.

> "I've never used a recreational drug (or even had a sip of alcohol) in my life,

Bet thats a lie and he has used caffiene.

> but Jacob Sullum makes a great case to stop the drug wars.
> He exposes the tricks of the drug warriors, who scam the crowd with
> huckster patter about magical substances that force people to do evil."
> - Penn Jillette, the larger, louder half of Penn & Teller
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1585423181/reasonmagazineA/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wall St. Journal: On saving on phone service and cable
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/159cdc61827d4f54?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 8:04 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310097165622001.html
>
> Granted, this article isn't exactly aimed at people who are truly
> struggling, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

Trouble is that it misses the point utterly. The real way to go is viop.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: glennsacks.com: "In the UK You Can't Sue For Paternity Fraud" (plus
some GOOD news)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d491bf5fd66821a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 8:17 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

>>> albeit rarely.

>> Not that rarely now that DNA allows incontrovertible proof of paternity.

>>> So why in this case? What distinguishes it from other cases of paternity fraud?

>> The circumstances, just like with every legal ruling.

> Unfortunately, "circumstances" don't necessarily help the man. See
> this (you may not believe it, but Reason Magazine is pretty reliable).

I believe it, the US legal system has been completely off the rails for centurys now.

It is better than lynch mobs tho.

> http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html

> Since this is from 2004 (I read it about 2 years ago) I don't
> understand why it showed up in Google News just over three weeks ago,
> on Jan. 12th. (I was searching on "paternity fraud" when I
> rediscovered it.)
>
> In a nutshell, it tells the story of California's Tony Pierce, who got
> targeted for child support by a woman who knew perfectly well she'd
> never even met him - and the courts didn't care what Pierce's DNA test
> said. Apparently, the courts' attitude is pretty common, even if women
> like that aren't. The reason? Quote:
>
> Once paternity is "established," even if the government has never
> communicated with the father, the county court imposes a payment rate
> and schedule under the statistically mistaken assumption that he makes
> a full-time salary at minimum wage. (State audits have found that a
> full 80 percent of default dads don't make even that much.) To collect
> the money, the county may put a garnish order on the purported
> father's paycheck or place liens on his assets. If the mother has
> received welfare assistance after the child was born, the man will be
> hit with a bill to pay back the state, plus 10 percent annual
> interest. "That's what they're trying to do, is get some reimbursement
> to the state," says Carolyn Kelly, public relations officer for the
> Contra Costa County DCSS. "As you can imagine, [that's] millions and
> millions and millions and millions of dollars."
>
> (end)
>
>>
>>> Apparently the mother, Jamie Hope and the biological father Oba
>>> Wallace, knew or strongly suspected the child was Wallace's from the
>>> time it was two years old. Nevertheless, when Hope filed an action to
>>> collect child support from Samuels, she unequivocally named him as the
>>> father. That's what Judge Roper didn't like; he said it constituted fraud
>>> and obligated her to repay Samuels. (Of course Wallace never made any
>>> such claim in court, so why he should have to pay Samuels isn't clear.)

>> It aint just about claims.

> Glad you think so, but, assuming the real father didn't want a child,
> Franklin and other MRAs (men's rights activists) have an unfortunate
> tendency to lump unwilling fathers together with men who were never
> biological fathers at all, as if they both deserved complete sympathy.
> (Of course, we're not talking about adoptive fathers here.) Maybe
> Franklin was saying that since the crime lies with the mother, she
> should be paying for everything. However, the biological father SHOULD
> have been supporting his child, so why not try to ensure the child doesn't
> suffer, as she would if the mother had to make all the payments to Samuels?

Absolutely classic example of a judgement that needs the wisdom of solomon
and the US legal system has never ever had anyone like that in it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The IRS, viabilty and the perfection of no resistance
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bec600159a8cbc04?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 9:22 pm
From: phil scott

On Feb 2, 2:58 pm, albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:02 am, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is no lasting economic or other viability without a moral/
> > ethical base...
>
> > debunkable as merely a respect for Life generally, and humanity,
> > including oneself (not to be mistaken for blind arrogance, thats
> > fatal)...
>
> > A prerequisite to morality and ethics however is intelligence,
> > Intelligence only occurs with abject honesty.
>
> > Stepping though that in reverse, beginning with abject honesty, you
> > can bail yourself out of a degraded condition.... pay your karmic and
> > other debts and be graciously viable... (takes decades in my
> > experience) ....Yer girl friend catching fish for you off the poop
> > deck as you panay them in the galley...
>
> > with a few hundred yards between you and the vicious morons working
> > for the IRS... who are now forced to give up globally .... btw....
> > their ruthlessness had indeed produced their desired result, no
> > resistance,,, in fact the perfection of no resistance, death,
>
> > smart those folk.
>
> > no money honey, and their attempts to collect from the collapsing
> > economy merely destroying the last viable vestigages of their own
> > interests, their own personal sit on their ass 'job' ..... and their
> > own sit on their ass retirements....total wastes to the end.
>
> > . pooooof.
>
> > we had been discussing this eventuality for a while you know.
>
> > Phil scott
>
> The IRS never give up. They will find a way to tax poverty. Negative
> interest rates might be coming. Tom Vu will return to Vietnam rather
> than pay up. Even Obama appointees are now paying taxes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

that is correct in spades... however the approach wipes out the
middle class and entrepreneurship, and finance, destroying the host
nation... and in very short order.. not decades, but a few years, two
or three or a lot less...even months. we are fast approaching that
stage at a very steep angle.

Phil scott

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 9:23 pm
From: phil scott

On Jan 30, 10:10 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:02 am, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is no lasting economic or other viability without a moral/
> > ethical base...
>
> > debunkable as merely a respect for Life generally, and humanity,
> > including oneself (not to be mistaken for blind arrogance, thats
> > fatal)...
>
> > A prerequisite to morality and ethics however is intelligence,
> > Intelligence only occurs with abject honesty.
>
> > Stepping though that in reverse, beginning with abject honesty, you
> > can bail yourself out of a degraded condition.... pay your karmic and
> > other debts and be graciously viable... (takes decades in my
> > experience) ....Yer girl friend catching fish for you off the poop
> > deck as you panay them in the galley...
>
> > with a few hundred yards between you and the vicious morons working
> > for the IRS... who are now forced to give up globally .... btw....
> > their ruthlessness had indeed produced their desired result, no
> > resistance,,, in fact the perfection of no resistance, death,
>
> > smart those folk.
>
> > no money honey, and their attempts to collect from the collapsing
> > economy merely destroying the last viable vestigages of their own
> > interests, their own personal sit on their ass 'job' ..... and their
> > own sit on their ass retirements....total wastes to the end.
>
> > . pooooof.
>
> > we had been discussing this eventuality for a while you know.
>
> > Phil scott
>
> Dude, don't post while you're high.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Im not high, i was dropped on my head as a small child...then had many
motorcycle accidents (flat tracking) and also red heads crossed my
path... Kimbra in kady for instance... its been a hard on me.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: STIMULUS AIDS ILLEGALS ALIENS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3b3b6cea14ee4d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 9:22 pm
From: Keith

On Jan 30, 3:34 am, hp...@lycos.com wrote:
> On Jan 29, 3:38 pm, AnAmericanCitizen <NoAmne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hill Republican: Stimulus aids illegal immigrants
>
> > Jan 29 12:02 PM US/Eastern
>
> > By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
> > Associated Press Writer
>
> > House OKs $819 Billion Stimulus Bill Without One GOP Vote
>
> > Pelosi Stammers Through Defense Of $335 Million For STD Education In Stimulus Bill
>
> > Proposal: 'Obama-Limbaugh Bipartisan Stimulus Plan of 2009'
>
> > WASHINGTON (AP) - The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way
> > through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top
> > Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.
>
> > The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per
> > couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who
> > don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.
>
> > Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file
> > tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic
> > recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such
> > a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax
> > credits.
>
> > A revolt among GOP conservatives to similar provisions of a 2008 economic stimulus
> > bill, which sent rebate checks to most wage earners, forced Democratic congressional
> > leaders to add stricter eligibility requirements. That legislation, enacted in
> > February 2008, required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to
> > get checks.
>
> > The GOP official voiced concerns about the latest economic aid measure on condition
> > of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly.
>
> > Republicans have already blasted the package for including what they argue is
> > wasteful spending and omitting tax cuts for wealthier people and businesses they say
> > are needed to jump-start the anemic economy.
>
> > Not a single Republican voted for an $819 billion version of the plan when it passed
> > the House on Wednesday.
>
> > GOP senators arranged a midday news conference to voice their concerns.
>
> Vote-grubbing congressional scumbags pander to their beloved illegal
> aliens.
>
> mitch
>
> http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World News
Illegal immigrants are a factor in the budget gap math
By George Skelton
February 02, 2009
Based on my e-mail, a lot of folks think the solution to California's
state budget deficit is to round up all the illegal immigrants and
truck them down to Mexico.

Wrong. Even if it were logistically possible and the deportees didn't
just climb off the truck and hitch another ride back up north, their
absence from the state wouldn't come close to saving enough tax
dollars to balance a budget that has a $42-billion hole projected over
the next 17 months.

Painful cuts in education, healthcare and social service programs
still would be needed. Sharp tax increases would be required.

That said, let's be honest: Illegal immigration does cost California
taxpayers a substantial wad, undeniably into the billions.

But it hasn't been PC for officeholders to talk about this for years,
ever since Gov. Pete Wilson broke his pick waging an aggressive
campaign for Proposition 187. That 1994 ballot initiative sought to
bar illegal immigrants from most public services, including education.
Voters approved the measure overwhelmingly, but it was tossed out by
the courts.

Wilson was demonized by Democrats within the Latino community. And
many think the Republican Party never has recovered among this rapidly
growing slice of the electorate.

So it's not a topic that comes easily to the tongues of politicians,
even Republicans.

Besides, most of the policy issues are out of California's hands. The
federal government has jurisdiction over the border. Federal law
decrees that every child is entitled to attend public school,
regardless of immigration status. And every person – here illegally or
not – must be cared for in hospital emergency rooms.

But the state does add a few benefits that aren't required.

And as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders dig into the
books trying to find billions in savings, at least a brief look at
what's being spent on illegal immigrants seems in order.

First, nobody seems to know exactly. Numbers vary widely, depending
which side they come from in the ongoing angry debate over whether
people who entered the country illegally to work should be allowed to
stay or loaded on the southbound truck.

But here are some no-agenda numbers:

* There were 2.8 million illegal immigrants living in California in
2006, the last year for which there are relatively good figures,
according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.
That represented about 8% of the state's population and roughly a
quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants. About 90% of California's
illegal immigrants were from Latin America; 65% from Mexico.

* There are roughly 19,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons,
representing 11% of all inmates. That's costing $970 million during
the current fiscal year. The feds kick in a measly $111 million,
leaving the state with an $859 million tab.

* Schools are the toughest to calculate. Administrators don't ask kids
about citizenship status. Anyway, many children of illegal immigrants
were born in this country and automatically became U.S. citizens.

If you figure that the children of illegal immigrants attending K-12
schools approximates the proportion of illegal immigrants in the
population, the bill currently comes to roughly $4 billion. Most is
state money; some local property taxes.

* Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare, called CalWORKs. But
their citizen children are. Roughly 190,000 kids are receiving welfare
checks that pass through their parents. The cost: about $500 million,
according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

Schwarzenegger has proposed removing these children from the welfare
rolls after five years. It's part of a broader proposal to also boot
off, after five years, the children of U.S. citizens who aren't
meeting federal work requirements. There'd be a combined savings of
$522 million.

* The state is spending $775 million on Medi-Cal healthcare for
illegal immigrants, according to the legislative analyst. Of that,
$642 million goes into direct benefits. Practically all the rest is
paid to counties to administer the program. The feds generally match
the state dollar-for-dollar on mandatory programs.

So-called emergency services are the biggest state cost: $536 million.
Prenatal care is $59 million. Not counted in the overall total is the
cost of baby delivery – $108 million – because the newborns aren't
illegal immigrants.

The state also pays $47 million for programs that Washington does not
require: Non-emergency care (breast and cervical cancer treatment),
$25 million; long-term nursing home care, $19 million; abortions, $3
million.

Schwarzenegger has proposed requiring illegal immigrants to requalify
every month for Medi-Cal benefits, except pregnancy-related
emergencies.

There also are other taxpayer costs – especially through local
governments – but those are the biggies for the state. Add them all up
and the state spends well over $5 billion a year on illegal immigrants
and their families.

Of course, illegal immigrants do pay state taxes. But no way do they
pay enough to replenish what they're drawing in services. Their main
revenue contribution would be the sales tax, but they can't afford to
be big consumers, and food and prescription drugs are exempt.

My view is this: These people are here illegally and shouldn't be,
regardless of whether they're just looking for a better life. Do it
the legal way. And enforce the law against hiring the undocumented.

On the other hand, they are here. We can't have uneducated kids and
unhealthy people living with us. We have moral obligations and
practical imperatives.

The Obama administration and Congress need to finally pass an
immigration reform act that allows for an agriculture work program and
a route to citizenship.

Meanwhile, California should be honest about the costs. Illegal
immigrants are not the sole cause of the state's deficit. But they are
a drain.

george.skelton@latimes.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: free breakfast at Denny's
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5d558b88e7e81392?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 10:39 pm
From: "Woody"

Denny's is offering a free Grand Slam breakfast on Tuesday between 6:00 a.m.
and 2:00 p.m.

Only the dish is free; drinks are not included, and sides are 99 cents for
two.

People attending also get a free coupon book.

Rainchecks will be issued for those unable to get seating.

Here's the link to the story:

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/smartspending/archive/2009/02/02/let-s-go-out-for-breakfast.aspx

Woody

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ++ Hilary Clinton Sex Scandal
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e2f5cf388636837f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 11:26 pm
From: systemofadownsyndrom2@gmail.com

Free Download http://imival.blogspot.com/ - The video that rocked the
oval oralfis , Hilary Clinton Sex tape naked with The hockey legend
Wade Greatski..

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 11:31 pm
From: "Woody"

<systemofadownsyndrom2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b79d6b2-18e8-484c-ae76-05181844e8d8@l34g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Free Download http://imival.blogspot.com/ - The video that rocked the
> oval oralfis , Hilary Clinton Sex tape naked with The hockey legend
> Wade Greatski..

Who's Wade Greatski? Sounds more like a downhiller than a hokey player.

Woody

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

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

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 14 new messages in 12 topics - digest

No comments: