Frugal Living: Feb 24, 2009

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: food stamps
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f5b43b6057089480?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 10:38 pm
From: "Bob F"

NotMe wrote:
> "Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message
> news:gnvm87$l8i$1@news.datemas.de...
>> hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:39:51 -0600, Dave Garland
>>> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> clams_casino wrote:
>>>>> How could a
>>>>> young family of four not live relatively well on $580 groceries /
>>>>> mo?
>>>>>
>>>> Seems like a lot to me, but I didn't see the show.
>>>>
>>>> A few possibilities are, poor choices, special needs (allergies
>>>> etc.) living in a rural area (everything costs more and there
>>>> isn't much competition), living somewhere like Alaska or Hawaii,
>>>> living in an inner city without a car (corner stores are very
>>>> expensive).
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> In emailed conversation with the fellow who had the shopping
>>> comparison website, he stated that the cost of food in Hawaii is
>>> roughly 3 times that of stateside.
>>>
>>> Food is an area where you often pay now or pay later. A store
>>> recently had bologna on sale for $1 a package. I tried it with
>>> mustard, I tried it fried, I tried it smothered, and I still ended
>>> up throwing it out. I hate to think of the processed chicken
>>> joints that I was eating.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, food stamps are proportionate to the cost of
>> living in your area. If you live in a high-cost area, you get more.
>>
> Some areas mandate what you can 'buy'. As example in the foster
> family program they get 10 gal of milk per month per kid, regardless
> if the kid or anyone in the family can tolerate milk. By the same
> token if the kid requires a special diet such as soy milk you're SOL.
> Don't even think about special (read expensive) baby formula.
>
> They get pounds of cheese as well, which is useless if the kids have
> allergies to milk products.
>
> Right now peanut butter is a mandated item but also on the recall
> list, so go figure.

For food stamps???????

Are you sure????

This sounds a lot more like a food bank thing.

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 5:39 am
From: Napoleon

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:28:04 GMT, ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
wrote:

>they don't know how to cook. buying ingredients to cook from scratch
>is not that expensive even if you go organic. i am also on food stamps
>and get $100/mo for myself only. this is always enough even though i
>shop at whole foods and trader joes. but i don't eat much meat. i buy
>it on sale and then freeze it. i also cook soups and stews etc and
>freeze them.

Exactly. For a family of two (we're not on Food Stamps) we spend
around $180 a month - which includes all food, paper products,
cleaning supplies and pet food. I stretch out grocery shopping to
every three weeks.

I cook almost all meals from scratch and save half the meals for the
next day or freeze them for later. I cook all deserts from scratch and
usually can eat them for at least a week to a week and a half. We make
our own beer and wine, and don't drink coffee. Water from the tap is
my preferred drink.

I also make my own bread and freeze that as well.

>the expensive grocery items are the cereal [even plain store brand
>stuff costs a lot], juice box type drinks [if you drink this stuff, go
>for koolaid. it's cheaper], frozen dinner type stuff [pizzas and so
>forth] and candy/cookietype things. most of these can be made from
>scratch for a lot less.

Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
Kids can drink Koolaid mixed up from a packet. I NEVER buy frozen
dinners. I make my own pot pies and pizzas.

The reason why most people don't cook is because they don't know how,
and it requires them to spend the extra time cleaning the dishes
later. That cuts into TV time. Also, alot of people refuse to eat
leftovers.

-Napoleon

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 6:12 am
From: clams_casino

Napoleon wrote:

>
>
>Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
>
>
>

I'm not sure why so many are down on cereals. I have shredded wheat
(mix one unsweetened biscuit half/half with Miniwheats) and my wife
likes either Cherrios or Special K several days/week. With 1% Milk at
about $2/gallon at Aldies, it's a very economical breakfast (or
occasionally supper) at less than 50 cents/ meal, especially with
coupons that are frequently available.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:13 am
From: Dave Garland

Bob F wrote:
> NotMe wrote:
>> Right now peanut butter is a mandated item but also on the recall
>> list, so go figure.

Only peanut butter (or any product containing peanuts or PB) made from
Peanut Corp. of America peanuts, which doesn't include any national
consumer brands of PB as far as I know.

Does that mean I'd trust a Brand X peanut butter that's not on the
list? Probably not.
>
> For food stamps???????
>
> Are you sure????
>
> This sounds a lot more like a food bank thing.

Or WIC (a mother/child nutrition program), which does specify
particular foods. I agree that this doesn't describe food stamp
programs that I'm familiar with. Perhaps NotMe would like to tell us
what state he's talking about.

Dave

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:14 am
From: Evelyn Leeper

Napoleon wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:28:04 GMT, ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
> wrote:
>
>> they don't know how to cook. buying ingredients to cook from scratch
>> is not that expensive even if you go organic. i am also on food stamps
>> and get $100/mo for myself only. this is always enough even though i
>> shop at whole foods and trader joes. but i don't eat much meat. i buy
>> it on sale and then freeze it. i also cook soups and stews etc and
>> freeze them.
>
> Exactly. For a family of two (we're not on Food Stamps) we spend
> around $180 a month - which includes all food, paper products,
> cleaning supplies and pet food. I stretch out grocery shopping to
> every three weeks.
>
> I cook almost all meals from scratch and save half the meals for the
> next day or freeze them for later. I cook all deserts from scratch and
> usually can eat them for at least a week to a week and a half. We make
> our own beer and wine, and don't drink coffee. Water from the tap is
> my preferred drink.
>
> I also make my own bread and freeze that as well.
>
>> the expensive grocery items are the cereal [even plain store brand
>> stuff costs a lot], juice box type drinks [if you drink this stuff, go
>> for koolaid. it's cheaper], frozen dinner type stuff [pizzas and so
>> forth] and candy/cookietype things. most of these can be made from
>> scratch for a lot less.
>
> Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
> Kids can drink Koolaid mixed up from a packet. I NEVER buy frozen
> dinners. I make my own pot pies and pizzas.
>
> The reason why most people don't cook is because they don't know how,
> and it requires them to spend the extra time cleaning the dishes
> later. That cuts into TV time. Also, alot of people refuse to eat
> leftovers.

There are a lot of people living in small apartments with minimal
cooking facilities, minimal cooking utensils, and so on. Low-income
apartments these days often have "mini-kitchens" that have a microwave
but no stove. This does not make cooking cheap nutritious meals easy.

Let me repeat that--many of these people may not have any cooking
facilities other than a microwave oven.

That said, the food stamp program would work better if it came with a
course on preparing inexpensive meals and a start-up budget to allow the
purchase of basic cookware and utensils. I can't find a reference, but
I could swear I heard that during the Depression, Mayor LaGuardia read a
recipe for pasta e fagioli over the radio as an example of a cheap
nutritious meal.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Nobody believes the official spokesman ... but everybody
trusts an unidentified source. -Ron Nesen, 1977

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 9:05 am
From: ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:14:47 -0500, Evelyn Leeper
<eleeper@optonline.net> wrote:

>Napoleon wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:28:04 GMT, ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> they don't know how to cook. buying ingredients to cook from scratch
>>> is not that expensive even if you go organic. i am also on food stamps
>>> and get $100/mo for myself only. this is always enough even though i
>>> shop at whole foods and trader joes. but i don't eat much meat. i buy
>>> it on sale and then freeze it. i also cook soups and stews etc and
>>> freeze them.
>>
>> Exactly. For a family of two (we're not on Food Stamps) we spend
>> around $180 a month - which includes all food, paper products,
>> cleaning supplies and pet food. I stretch out grocery shopping to
>> every three weeks.
>>
>> I cook almost all meals from scratch and save half the meals for the
>> next day or freeze them for later. I cook all deserts from scratch and
>> usually can eat them for at least a week to a week and a half. We make
>> our own beer and wine, and don't drink coffee. Water from the tap is
>> my preferred drink.
>>
>> I also make my own bread and freeze that as well.
>>
>>> the expensive grocery items are the cereal [even plain store brand
>>> stuff costs a lot], juice box type drinks [if you drink this stuff, go
>>> for koolaid. it's cheaper], frozen dinner type stuff [pizzas and so
>>> forth] and candy/cookietype things. most of these can be made from
>>> scratch for a lot less.
>>
>> Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
>> Kids can drink Koolaid mixed up from a packet. I NEVER buy frozen
>> dinners. I make my own pot pies and pizzas.
>>
>> The reason why most people don't cook is because they don't know how,
>> and it requires them to spend the extra time cleaning the dishes
>> later. That cuts into TV time. Also, alot of people refuse to eat
>> leftovers.
>
>There are a lot of people living in small apartments with minimal
>cooking facilities, minimal cooking utensils, and so on. Low-income
>apartments these days often have "mini-kitchens" that have a microwave
>but no stove. This does not make cooking cheap nutritious meals easy.
>
>Let me repeat that--many of these people may not have any cooking
>facilities other than a microwave oven.
>
>That said, the food stamp program would work better if it came with a
>course on preparing inexpensive meals and a start-up budget to allow the
>purchase of basic cookware and utensils. I can't find a reference, but
>I could swear I heard that during the Depression, Mayor LaGuardia read a
>recipe for pasta e fagioli over the radio as an example of a cheap
>nutritious meal.
>
>--
>Evelyn C. Leeper
>Nobody believes the official spokesman ... but everybody
>trusts an unidentified source. -Ron Nesen, 1977

an even more serious problem than few cooking facillities is lack of
security for your pantry. if your brother/sister or whomever is going
to raid your pantry, itis certainly a disincentive to stock up on
food. this can be a real problem if your relative brings their kids
over and says 'they are hungry.'and you know it's true even if you
also know that it's because the parents spent the food money on other
things.

but the cooking facilities problem can be solved at salvation army or
somesuch. a hot plate, crock pot and minimal pots and pans can be
gotten there cheaply. even if you can't cook to freeze, at least you
can make hot cereal and inexpensive meals.

but i completely agree that to get the food stamps, a course on smart
shopping and basic cooking should be required. a lot of these people
really don't know that they could be eating better at a lower cost.

elise

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 12:20 pm
From: Napoleon

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
wrote:

>but i completely agree that to get the food stamps, a course on smart
>shopping and basic cooking should be required. a lot of these people
>really don't know that they could be eating better at a lower cost.

We used to have that. It was called Home Economics class in school.
But then I guess that was too sexist and they got rid of it. Now both
males and females are clueless about cooking and keeping a home. What
an improvement!

Oh, and a basic class on balancing a checkbook would be nice for all
Americans, included politicians and CEOs of banking institutions.

Napoleon.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 12:47 pm
From: clams_casino

Napoleon wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>but i completely agree that to get the food stamps, a course on smart
>>shopping and basic cooking should be required. a lot of these people
>>really don't know that they could be eating better at a lower cost.
>>
>>
>
>We used to have that. It was called Home Economics class in school.
>But then I guess that was too sexist and they got rid of it. Now both
>males and females are clueless about cooking and keeping a home. What
>an improvement!
>
>
>
Equal opportunity education.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 12:54 pm
From: BigDog1

On Feb 23, 11:02 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com>
wrote:
> Just saw a couple whining on CNN that it was hard making it through the
> month on just $580/mo of food stamps. Granted, they were a family of
> four vs. the two of us, but the children appeared to be early grade
> school age, not teenagers. Furthermore, aren't most kids getting free
> breakfast and lunch at school these days (especially those in food stamp
> families)?
>
> The two of us have averaged less than $400/mo for the past ten (+) years
> ($365/moin 07 and $398/mo in 08). I'm not sure what food stamps
> include, but our $400 / mo includes all paper products, over the counter
> drugs (aspirin, vitamin pills, etc), cleaning chemicals, personal
> products (toothpaste, soap, razor blades, etc) as well as the cost of
> the newspaper (I include its yearly subscription since its cost is
> essentially covered by the coupons against groceries). We also tend to
> eat primarily fresh foods (rarely frozen or canned), including fresh
> seafood at least twice / mo and typically don't freeze much as
> leftovers. That also includes our liquor costs, but that is typically
> only about 4 bottles of wine / year. We include all items one might
> pick up at a grocer, even if bought at fruit stands, Walmart, etc.
>
> Point is, I'm sure we could cut much more, if need be. How could a
> young family of four not live relatively well on $580 groceries / mo?

I wish I could get $580.00 a month in food stamps. That would keep my
wife and I and our dog fed, with enough left over to sell on the black
market to keep my gas tank full, and plenty of beer in the 'fridge.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 1:25 pm
From: BigDog1

On Feb 24, 1:20 pm, Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, ediefa...@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
> wrote:
>
> >but i completely agree that to get the food stamps, a course on smart
> >shopping and basic cooking should be required. a lot of these people
> >really don't know that they could be eating better at a lower cost.
>
> We used to have that. It was called Home Economics class in school.
> But then I guess that was too sexist and they got rid of it. Now both
> males and females are clueless about cooking and keeping a home. What
> an improvement!

Yeah, I remember that. We had "home ec" at my high school in the
early sixties. But it was an out growth of the days when married
women were stay at home moms, and a middle class family could
comfortably live on a single income. That was, I believe, the
beginning of the end of that era. Not to say that class didn't teach
valuable skills that are completely relevant today. But since they
were populated almost exclusively by women, I think they were done
away with for the very reason you stated.

Of course, there's no reason why these skills shouldn't have been
taught at home, except that many parents were/are just too damned lazy
to do it. When my son was growing up he had all sorts of age
appropriate "chores" he was responsible for around the house,
including helping to prepare meals and cleanup afterwards. By the time
he was in high school he was responsible to get dinner on the table on
his own two days a week. Sometimes it would have been easier to just
do it ourselves, but what would that have taught him? During his
bachelor days his place was neat as a pin, and he ate quite well,
within his budget, without relying on restaurants or take out. Now
that he's a family man I'm seeing some of the same discipline at his
house that he grew up with.

By the way, after their second kid came along, they stopped. They
decided that was how many they could afford to feed, clothe and
educate. Imagine that, socially and economically responsible family
planning!

>
> Oh, and a basic class on balancing a checkbook would be nice for all
> Americans, included politicians and CEOs of banking institutions.
>
> Napoleon.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mixing CFLs
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3585b15c24a653c0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 12:15 am
From: "JR Weiss"

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote...
>
> All the best and good luck and everything else along these lines, but I
> have a hard time finding 23 watt CFLs being equivalent to incandescents
> and halogens beyond about 90 watts. I consider a 23 watt CFL claiming
> equivalence to 120W incandescent to be inviting opportunities for
> disappointment!
>
> Maybe your 23 watt CFLs achieved what the 75 watt halogens achieved -
> still very much quite a savings!!!

I agree -- the CFLs are not anywhere as good as the halogens. The older
"90W equivalent" were pitiful indeed. The "120W equivalent" do not put as
bright a spot as the halogens, but they're spread out a bit more. Overall
they give a bit less light than the 75W halogens. OTOH, they take 1/3 the
power...

Now if I could only find suitable replacements for the 8 60W globes in the
dining room. maybe some fancy LEDs will come out soon...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reuse of old computers with Linux
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ee60f81025a0e492?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 3:07 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<21c42975-3e91-4568-b847-018c6f1d1ae2@l37g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
albundy2@mailinator.com wrote:

> On Feb 21, 2:52 pm, matthewb <matthew.bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why reuse an old computer?
> >
> > Cheaper than buying a new computer.
> > Allows a computer to have a new second life.
> > Less e waste being created.
> > If your old PC has full or a broken hard drive.
> > Create a portable Linux installation with your own documents on a USB
> > memory stick.
> > Potentially retrieve files from a computer with a broken operating
> > system.
> > The power consumption may be lower than the modern trend of 500 Watt
> > power supplies in a PC.
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I don't think much of the idea. Hard drives are dirt cheap right now.
> If you have a broken one you'd have to replace it anyway. Why dink
> around with Linux that won't run some of my software, peripherals and
> script not written for it? Just back yourself up with a cloned drive
> to begin with and the problem of a bad drive is fixed in five minutes,
> no files lost. If you have two old computers, you can sinc them and do
> the same thing.

I agree. There's no reason that a failed hard drive should spell
disaster for a computer. My desktop Mac at home has a pair of internal
drives. One drive is a duplicate of the other. They hold my apps and the
OS. If the boot drive fails; I just switch over to the other by
rebooting and pressing one key. I keep my files on an external disk
drive which gets backed up to another external disk drive and
periodically, I back up the primary data drive to another disk drive,
which I keep outside of my home when I am not using it. Works great. I
have been doing it this way for years and despite at least two hard
drive failures, I haven't lost any data.

Linux is great for a lot of things. I run several servers at work that
run Linux. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of running Linux on
my desktop, and I work in IT and I know Linux better than most people. I
can't imagine who the average computer user who is mostly ignorant of
computers could be comfortable with a Linux-based computer at home.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 3:08 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<35e98211-7fd6-45ae-b43c-a4a7a169433a@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
matthewb <matthew.bulat@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 22, 10:16 am, albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2:52 pm, matthewb <matthew.bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why reuse an old computer?
> >
> > > Cheaper than buying a new computer.
> > > Allows a computer to have a new second life.
> > > Less e waste being created.
> > > If your old PC has full or a broken hard drive.
> > > Create a portable Linux installation with your own documents on a USB
> > > memory stick.
> > > Potentially retrieve files from a computer with a broken operating
> > > system.
> > > The power consumption may be lower than the modern trend of 500 Watt
> > > power supplies in a PC.
> >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I don't think much of the idea. Hard drives are dirt cheap right now.
> > If you have a broken one you'd have to replace it anyway. Why dink
> > around with Linux that won't run some of my software, peripherals and
> > script not written for it? Just back yourself up with a cloned drive
> > to begin with and the problem of a bad drive is fixed in five minutes,
> > no files lost. If you have two old computers, you can sinc them and do
> > the same thing.
>
> The goal of the document was to try Linux on a older computer to see
> if can have a second life.
> I assume most old computers are operational but not quick enough to
> run Windows any more.

To what end? What would the computer be used for? Linux can run on some
toasters; it doesn't mean its a good substitute for a modern computer
with Mac OS X or Windows whatever.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Invader photos.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f4273d60beef54b6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 3:31 am
From: wismel@yahoo.com

http://www.newnation.org/NNN-news-invasion.html

Get 'em all!

ted

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal living in the Philadelphia region
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2966eecceef32162?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 4:53 am
From: xuy937@yahoo.com

Some useful tips on the subject of frugal living in the Philadelphia
region:
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/frugal-philly.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free shipping Wholesale NFL jerseys USD 20.06 ~ 21.95 MLB USD 20.06 ~
21.95 Paypal payment
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1d7b061453b8c119?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 5:54 am
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article
<13d59953-d647-4854-8766-149957edcb48@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
guoshitrade100@126.com wrote:

> Minimum order is one,factory price also! Paypal payment free
> shipping

What if I just want half a jersey? I'll have to find some
other Internet SPAMMER to rip me off.

> We are deal with NFL jerseys / Kids NFL jerseys / NBA jerseys /MLB
> jerseys / NHL jerseys

At that price, they are illegal rip-off fakes. Don't buy this
low quality fake stuff. They probably can not even spell some
of the team names right.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's Up With Food Prices?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9837c189523ee77a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 7:44 am
From: HereIAm@Home.org (Way Back Jack)

Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.

In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are still
rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.
And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.

Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
just around the corner.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:17 am
From: Evelyn Leeper

Way Back Jack wrote:
> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.
>
> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are still
> rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.
> And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
> oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
> size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.
>
> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
> just around the corner.

No, they'll be fatter, because the cheapest foods available are those
that make people fat (like all those with high-fructose corn syrup).

Compare the costs of that broccoli with, say, bread and butter. The
latter has remained fairly stable. So people will eat more bread and
butter and less broccoli.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Nobody believes the official spokesman ... but everybody
trusts an unidentified source. -Ron Nesen, 1977

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:20 am
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

"Way Back Jack" <HereIAm@Home.org> wrote in message
news:49a415ed.12262000@news.motzarella.org...
> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.
>
> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are still
> rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.
> And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
> oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
> size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.
>
> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
> just around the corner.

well jack, the real cause is being hidden by blaming it on gas prices. i'm
guessing production is down. i believe a famine is on the way.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 10:40 am
From: Jeff

A few factors, at least one is the high cost of diesel. Little farm
equipment runs on gas.

Look to to ethanol for shifting crops to the highly profitable corn,
driving up all prices.

And lastly, and perhaps most important: speculation in the
commodities market in food. Pretty much the same driver in oils rapid
rise and subsequent collapse when it unwound.

>
> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
> just around the corner.

That's funny that you are blaming the guy that has been in office one
month, and not the guy under whose watch this happened. Inherited annual
deficit from W is 1.2 T. National debt is more than twice what it was
when W took office and gave away the store. What benefit accrued from
his policies?

I think you are disconnected from reality, not worrying about what
has happened and buying into right wing hypotheticals. Those guys you
believe in have got a terrible track record.

Jeff

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 11:40 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Way Back Jack wrote:

> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.

> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are
> still rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.

Some have gone down again, most obviously bulk skinless chicken breasts.

> And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
> oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
> size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.

> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
> just around the corner.

Wanna bet ?

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 12:02 pm
From: not@work.org (Vladimir)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:40:51 -0500, Jeff <dont_bug_me@all.uk> wrote:

>Way Back Jack wrote:
>> Yeah, "Up" is a good word for it.
>>
>> In 2008, they blamed the bump-up on gas prices. But food prices
>> haven't dropped as gas prices have come down. In fact, some are still
>> rising, e.g., lb. store-brand broccoli florets from $1.59 to $1.89.
>> And today I see that cans of tuna have dropped in size from 6 oz. to 5
>> oz., with Star-Kist at 4.5 oz.! My Gawd, I can remember when the std.
>> size was 8 oz., then 7, 6 1/4, and 6.
>
> A few factors, at least one is the high cost of diesel. Little farm
>equipment runs on gas.
>
> Look to to ethanol for shifting crops to the highly profitable corn,
>driving up all prices.
>
> And lastly, and perhaps most important: speculation in the
>commodities market in food. Pretty much the same driver in oils rapid
>rise and subsequent collapse when it unwound.
>
>>
>> Before long, nobody will be fat anymore, especially with Obamaflation
>> just around the corner.
>
>
> That's funny that you are blaming the guy that has been in office one
>month, and not the guy under whose watch this happened. Inherited annual
>deficit from W is 1.2 T. National debt is more than twice what it was
>when W took office and gave away the store. What benefit accrued from
>his policies?
>
> I think you are disconnected from reality, not worrying about what
>has happened and buying into right wing hypotheticals. Those guys you
>believe in have got a terrible track record.
>

We'll give the affirmative action prince a chance, but I fear the OP
is predicting accurately.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Looting Social Security
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0d8d1efe9c92de17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 10:45 am
From: Latoya

Looting Social Security
By William Greider
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/greider/print

This article appeared in the March 2, 2009 edition of The Nation.
February 11, 2009

Governing elites in Washington and Wall Street have devised a fiendishly clever "grand bargain" they want
President Obama to embrace in the name of "fiscal responsibility." The government, they argue, having spent
billions on bailing out the banks, can recover its costs by looting the Social Security system. They are also
targeting Medicare and Medicaid. The pitch sounds preposterous to millions of ordinary working people anxious
about their economic security and worried about their retirement years. But an impressive armada is lined up
to push the idea--Washington's leading think tanks, the prestige media, tax-exempt foundations, skillful
propagandists posing as economic experts and a self-righteous billionaire spending his fortune to save the
nation from the elderly.

These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors
so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction
would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance
their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political
equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud.

Defending Social Security sounds like yesterday's issue--the fight people won when they defeated George W.
Bush's attempt to privatize the system in 2005. But the financial establishment has pushed it back on the
table, claiming that the current crisis requires "responsible" leaders to take action. Will Obama take the
bait? Surely not. The new president has been clear and consistent about Social Security, as a candidate and
since his election. The program's financing is basically sound, he has explained, and can be assured far into
the future by making only modest adjustments.

But Obama is also playing footsie with the conservative advocates of "entitlement reform" (their euphemism for
cutting benefits). The president wants the corporate establishment's support on many other important matters,
and he recently promised to hold a "fiscal responsibility summit" to examine the long-term costs of
entitlements. That forum could set the trap for a "bipartisan compromise" that may become difficult for Obama
to resist, given the burgeoning deficit. If he resists, he will be denounced as an old-fashioned free-spending
liberal. The advocates are urging both parties to hold hands and take the leap together, authorizing big
benefits cuts in a circuitous way that allows them to dodge the public's blame. In my new book, Come Home,
America, I make the point: "When official America talks of 'bipartisan compromise,' it usually means the
people are about to get screwed."

The Social Security fight could become a defining test for "new politics" in the Obama era. Will Americans at
large step up and make themselves heard, not to attack Obama but to protect his presidency from the political
forces aligned with Wall Street interests? This fight can be won if people everywhere raise a mighty
din--hands off our Social Security money!--and do it now, before the deal gains momentum. Popular outrage can
overwhelm the insiders and put members of Congress on notice: a vote to gut Social Security will kill your
career. By organizing and agitating, people blocked Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security. Imagine if he
had succeeded--their retirement money would have disappeared in the collapsing stock market.

To understand the mechanics of this attempted swindle, you have to roll back twenty-five years, to the time
the game of bait and switch began, under Ronald Reagan. The Gipper's great legislative victory in
1981--enacting massive tax cuts for corporations and upper-income ranks--launched the era of swollen federal
budget deficits. But their economic impact was offset by the huge tax increase that Congress imposed on
working people in 1983: the payroll tax rate supporting Social Security--the weekly FICA deduction--was raised
substantially, supposedly to create a nest egg for when the baby boom generation reached retirement age. A
blue-ribbon commission chaired by Alan Greenspan worked out the terms, then both parties signed on. Since
there was no partisan fight, the press portrayed the massive tax increase as a noncontroversial "good
government" reform.

Ever since, working Americans have paid higher taxes on their labor wages--12.4 percent, split between
employees and employers. As a result, the Social Security system has accumulated a vast surplus--now around
$2.5 trillion and growing. This is the money pot the establishment wants to grab, claiming the government can
no longer afford to keep the promise it made to workers twenty-five years ago.

Actually, the government has already spent their money. Every year the Treasury has borrowed the surplus
revenue collected by Social Security and spent the money on other purposes--whatever presidents and Congress
decide, including more tax cuts for monied interests. The Social Security surplus thus makes the federal
deficits seem smaller than they are--around $200 billion a year smaller. Each time the government dipped into
the Social Security trust fund this way, it issued a legal obligation to pay back the money with interest
whenever Social Security needed it to pay benefits.

That moment of reckoning is approaching. Uncle Sam owes these trillions to Social Security retirees and has to
pay it back or look like just another deadbeat. That risk is the only "crisis" facing Social Security. It is
the real reason powerful interests are so anxious to cut benefits. Social Security is not broke--not even
close. It can sustain its obligations for roughly forty years, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
even if nothing is changed. Even reports by the system's conservative trustees say it has no problem until
2041 (that report is signed by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the guy who bailed out the bankers).
During the coming decade, however, the system will need to start drawing on its reserve surpluses to pay for
benefits as boomers retire in greater numbers.

But if the government cuts the benefits first, it can push off repayment far into the future, and possibly
forever. Otherwise, government has to borrow the money by selling government bonds or extend the Social
Security tax to cover incomes above the current $107,000 ceiling. Obama endorses the latter option.

Follow the bouncing ball: Washington first cuts taxes on the well-to-do, then offsets the revenue loss by
raising taxes on the working class and tells folks it is saving their money for future retirement. But
Washington spends the money on other stuff, so when workers need it for their retirement, they are told,
Sorry, we can't afford it.

Federal budget analysts try to brush aside these facts by claiming the government is merely "borrowing from
itself" when it dips into Social Security. But that is a substantive falsehood. Government doesn't own this
money. It essentially acts as the fiduciary, holding this wealth in trust for the "beneficial owners," the
people who paid the taxes. This is the bait and switch the establishment intends to execute.

Peter Peterson, a Republican financier who made a fortune doing corporate takeover deals at Wall Street's
Blackstone Group, is the Daddy Warbucks of the "fiscal responsibility" crusade. He has campaigned for decades
against the dangers that old folks pose to the Republic. Now 82 and retired, Peterson claims he will spend
nearly one-third of his $2.8 billion in wealth--he ranks 147 on the Forbes 400 list of richest
Americans--alerting the public to this threat (leave aside the fact that old people have already paid for
their retirement or that Social Security's modest benefits are equivalent to minimum-wage income). The major
media treat him adoringly. Most reporters are too lazy (or dim) to check out the facts for themselves, so they
simply repeat what Peterson tells them about Social Security.

It is a frightful message. Peterson describes a "$53 trillion hole" in America's fiscal condition--but the
claim assumes numerous artful fallacies. His most blatant distortion is lumping Social Security, which is
self-funded and sound, with other entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs do face financial
crisis--not because the elderly and poor are greedily gaming the system but because the medical-industrial
complex has the profit incentive to drive healthcare costs higher and higher. Healthcare reform can solve the
financing problem only if it imposes cost controls on private players like the insurance and pharmaceutical
industries.

Peterson is financing a media blitz. His tendentious documentary--I.O.U.S.A.--opened in 400 theaters and was
broadcast on CNN with appropriate solemnity. Last September Peterson bought two full pages in the New York
Times to urge the next president to create a "bipartisan fiscal responsibility commission" once he was in
office (Peterson was for John McCain). This group of so-called experts would be authorized to design the
reforms for Congress to enact. But Peterson does not want Congress to have a full, freewheeling debate on the
particulars. The reform package, he suggests, should be submitted to a single "up-or-down vote by Congress, as
is done with military base closings." That's one of the gimmicks intended to give politicians cover and
protect them from their constituents. It is profoundly antidemocratic. But that's the idea--save the
government from the unruly passions of citizens. Peterson's proposal also resembles the notorious fast-track
provision, which for years enabled presidents to steamroll Congress on trade agreements, no amendments
allowed.

Peterson's proposal would essentially dismantle the Social Security entitlement enacted in the New Deal, much
as Bill Clinton repealed the right to welfare. Peterson has assembled influential allies for this radical
step. They include a coalition of six major think tanks and four tax-exempt foundations.

Their report--Taking Back Our Fiscal Future, issued jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Heritage
Foundation--recommends that Congress put long-term budget caps on Social Security and other entitlement
spending, which would automatically trigger benefits cuts if needed to stay within the prescribed limits. The
same antidemocratic mechanisms--a commission of technocrats and limited Congressional discretion--would shield
politicians from popular blowback.

The authors of this plan are sixteen economists from Brookings and Heritage, joined by the American Enterprise
Institute, the Concord Coalition, the New America Foundation, the Progressive Policy Institute and the Urban
Institute. "Our group covers the ideological spectrum," they claim. This too is a falsehood. All these
organizations are corporate-friendly and dependent on big-money contributors. No liberal or labor thinkers
need apply, though the group includes some formerly liberal economists like Robert Reischauer, Alice Rivlin
and Isabel Sawhill.

The ugliest ploy in their campaign is the effort to provoke conflict between the generations. "The automatic
funding of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid impedes explicit consideration of competing priorities and
threatens to squeeze out spending for young people," these economists declared. Children, it is suggested, are
being shortchanged by their grandparents. This line of argument has attracted financial support from some
leading foundations usually associated with liberal social concerns--Annie E. Casey, Charles Stewart Mott,
William and Flora Hewlett. Peterson has teamed up with the Pew Trust and has also created front groups of
"concerned youth."

Trouble is, most young people did not buy this pitch when George W. Bush used it to sell Social Security
privatization. Most kids seem to think Grandma is entitled to a decent retirement. In fact, whacking Social
Security benefits, not to mention Medicaid, directly harms poor children. More poor children live in families
dependent on Social Security checks than on welfare, economist Dean Baker points out. If you cut Grandma's
Social Security benefits, you are directly making life worse for the poor kids who live with her.

The assault sounds outrageous and bound to fail, but the conservative interests may have Obama in a neat trap.
Their fog of scary propaganda makes it easier to distort the president's position and blame him for any fiscal
disorders driven by the current financial collapse. He will be urged to "do the right thing" for the country
and make the hard choices, regardless of petty political grievances (words and phrases he has used himself).
Obama's fate may depend on informing the public--now, not later--so that people are inoculated against these
artful lies.

The real crisis, in any case, is not Social Security but the colossal failure of the private pension system.
Most people know this, either because their 401(k) account is pitifully inadequate, or their company dumped
its pension plan, or the plummeting stock market devoured their savings. Obama can protect himself with the
public by speaking candidly about this reality and proposing a forceful, long-term solution. He should expand
the guarantees that ordinary people need to get their families through these adverse times. Instead of taking
away old promises to people, the president should make some new ones. Healthcare reform is obviously an
important imperative, but so is retirement security.

The solution to retirement insecurity is the creation of a national pension, alongside Social Security, that
would be the bedrock social insurance. Improving Social Security benefits is one step, but it cannot possibly
restore what so many middle-class families have lost. Tinkering with the 401(k) would be doomed, because it is
basically a tax subsidy for the middle and upper classes, another way to avoid taxes that failed utterly to
produce real savings [see Greider, "Riding Into the Sunset," June 27, 2005].

The new universal pension would be mainly self-financing--that is, funded by mandatory savings--but the system
would operate as a government-supervised nonprofit, not manipulated by corporate executives or Wall Street
firms. A national pension would combine the best qualities of defined-benefit plans and individual accounts.
Each worker's pension would be individualized and portable, moving with job changes, but the savings would be
pooled with others for diversified investment.

There is nothing radical about this approach. It follows the form of the government's thrift savings plan for
civil servants and members of Congress, TIAA-CREF for college professors or other union pension plans jointly
managed by labor and management trustees. The crucial difference is that since the new universal pension would
be nonprofit, nobody would get to play self-interested games with the money that employees are storing in it
for retirement. People could check their accumulated balance at any time.

Washington would set the performance standards and enforce proper behavior, but the operations of retirement
programs could be widely decentralized among many private organizations or sector by sector. Other nations,
like Australia, have proved this can be both democratic and reliable. Economist Teresa Ghilarducci of the New
School has designed a promising and plausible plan (available at the Economic Policy Institute's website,
epi.org, or in her book When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them). With
payroll savings of 5 percent and government-guaranteed returns on investment, average workers could count on
pensions that would replace 70 percent of pre-retirement earnings when combined with Social Security. Low-wage
earners could be subsidized by government to make up for inadequate pay. Private retirement plans that collect
a higher percentage of pay and provide higher benefits could continue, so long as they exceed the federal
standard. One great virtue of this approach is that nobody gets left behind, dependent on charity, the
predatory instincts of the financial system or the magic of the marketplace.

Another great virtue is that a national pension would confront the country's glaring economic weakness--the
collapse of national savings. As the economy digs out of its hole, restoring household savings will be crucial
for ultimate recovery and for reduction of our dangerous dependence on foreign capital. Obviously, any system
that adds a new payroll tax cannot be introduced at the depth of a recession, but the work of constructing it
can begin right now, with the new system phased in gradually, as economic conditions permit. Instead of
second-guessing the past and destroying its accomplishments, this reform would look forward and create
conditions for a more promising future. Nobody gets a free lunch, and everybody has to take personal
responsibility. But unlike what the governing elites are attempting, nobody gets thrown over the side.
About William Greider
National affairs correspondent William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five
years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One
World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple, Who Will Tell The People, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon &
Schuster) and--due out in February from Rodale--Come Home, America. more...
Copyright © 2008 The Nation

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Amazon Kindle: Anyone have one?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/79f5e5af614ed721?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 11:53 am
From: me@privacy.net

Anyone have one?

Can you give me real world experience
with it?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How it is
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fa4f3ee335a2d3a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 12:00 pm
From: Derald

AmEx pays holders to drop card

The credit card company is offering $300 to some U.S. customers who pay
off their balances and close their accounts. Select American Express
(AXP) cardholders have until the end of Feb. to accept the offer in
return for a $300 prepaid American Express card. AmEx has been suffering
from rising credit card delinquencies. It fell 6.3% to 12.15.

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

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 24, 2009

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