There was a thread started over the impossibility of definition of frugality. IMO, defining frugality is much like defining personal religion. Each individual has their own definition and practice.
Personally for me frugality means being able to live with in the income earned. Right now that is very hard for us because we were used to a much larger income than currently available. Plants close, lay off workers, new jobs are hard to find, unemployment eventually runs and you settle for any job that pays more income than the fuel to go to work. So now this family is living on less than half the former income.
I have learned over the years to be rather tight with the coin. We had few extras, now the internet is the only remaining 'extra'. Though I am not sure the internet is really an 'extra' because it is usually my only contact outside the family at home. I don't leave the home much. This is a small working farm and I make handcrafted items to sell as well. The farm provides some of the food we eat. The handcrafted items sometimes provide some extra cash. If nothing else because I sew the family has clothing, some of it well mended.
For the most part I am happy with my lifestyle. It would be nice to have a bit more income. It would be even nicer if the gardens and livestock provided more to eat and sell. I am working on that. Some would say I would earn more if I worked outside the home. I say not. If you turn the time I spend repairing clothing, harvesting gardens, collecting eggs into dollars not spent at some shop, I am earning better than I could working somewhere else. Plus, I am here for the children when they return from school or if they have need of a parent during the day.
Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss. At first it was missed, but now I have found how to use the internet for weather and news updates. I have also become spoiled watching DVDs of the shows I like at my convenience without commercials. Satilite was our only choice for any kind of television reception. Too far from broadcast towers, down in a hollow so no line of sight to those distant towers, too far from town to have cable. Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed. Then we looked at what that had been costing us per month and realized that for the same money we could have purchased a great many DVDs. So instead of a $100 plus a month for satellite, we now spend maybe $20 a month on DVDs from the $5 rack at the discount department store.
I see too many people playing the 'keep up with the Jones' game and needing to work two jobs per adult to manage it. Where is the time to enjoy the extras purchased with that income if you are working two jobs? Does the family really _need_ that boat or four wheeler or expensive car?
Another place I see a lot of money wasted is at the grocery. Luncheon meat is expensive and usually heavier in fat than home cooked meat. Look at the price per pound on a whole frozen turkey and compare it to turkey luncheon meat. Is it really that hard to home cook the turkey, bone it, and slice it? Besides that luncheon meat does not come with separated dark/ light meat or organ meat. Look at the price of a whole ham verses luncheon meat. Most groceries will slice the ham for you. I have the ham sliced at the grocery, take it home, wrap it for freezing and then it is used as needed with out spoilage.
> There was a thread started over the impossibility of definition of frugality. > IMO, defining frugality is much like defining personal religion. > Each individual has their own definition and practice.
Thats not what definitions are about.
> Personally for me frugality means being able to live with in the income earned.
Thats not frugality. Frugality involves a lot more than just that, most obviously when the income is substantial and its just frittered away on baubles etc.
> Right now that is very hard for us because we were used to > a much larger income than currently available. Plants close, > lay off workers, new jobs are hard to find, unemployment > eventually runs and you settle for any job that pays more > income than the fuel to go to work. So now this family is > living on less than half the former income. > I have learned over the years to be rather tight with the coin. > We had few extras, now the internet is the only remaining 'extra'.
Bet it isnt.
> Though I am not sure the internet is really an 'extra' because it is > usually my only contact outside the family at home. I don't leave > the home much. This is a small working farm and I make handcrafted > items to sell as well. The farm provides some of the food we eat. > The handcrafted items sometimes provide some extra cash. If nothing > else because I sew the family has clothing, some of it well mended. > For the most part I am happy with my lifestyle. It would be nice > to have a bit more income. It would be even nicer if the gardens > and livestock provided more to eat and sell. I am working on that. > Some would say I would earn more if I worked outside the home. > I say not. If you turn the time I spend repairing clothing, harvesting > gardens, collecting eggs into dollars not spent at some shop, I am > earning better than I could working somewhere else.
That is rather doubtful with repairing clothing.
> Plus, I am here for the children when they return from school
You'd still be able to do that if the work was only during school hours.
And even if there are a couple of hours when you arent home when the kids are, that is hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
> or if they have need of a parent during the day.
Quite a few jobs allow for that.
> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss. At > first it was missed, but now I have found how to use the internet for > weather and news updates. I have also become spoiled watching > DVDs of the shows I like at my convenience without commercials. > Satilite was our only choice for any kind of television reception. > Too far from broadcast towers, down in a hollow so no line of > sight to those distant towers, too far from town to have cable. > Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed.
So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs.
> Then we looked at what that had been costing us per month > and realized that for the same money we could have purchased > a great many DVDs. So instead of a $100 plus a month for > satellite, we now spend maybe $20 a month on DVDs from > the $5 rack at the discount department store. > I see too many people playing the 'keep up with the Jones' > game and needing to work two jobs per adult to manage it. > Where is the time to enjoy the extras purchased with that > income if you are working two jobs? Does the family really > _need_ that boat or four wheeler or expensive car?
Doesnt NEED a house or farm either, you can 'live' in a tent.
> Another place I see a lot of money wasted is at the grocery. > Luncheon meat is expensive and usually heavier in fat than home > cooked meat. Look at the price per pound on a whole frozen turkey > and compare it to turkey luncheon meat. Is it really that hard to > home cook the turkey, bone it, and slice it? Besides that luncheon > meat does not come with separated dark/ light meat or organ meat. > Look at the price of a whole ham verses luncheon meat. Most > groceries will slice the ham for you. I have the ham sliced at the > grocery, take it home, wrap it for freezing and then it is used as > needed with out spoilage.
Makes more sense to get a slicer at a yard sale or ebay.
>> There was a thread started over the impossibility of definition of >> frugality.
>> IMO, defining frugality is much like defining personal religion. >> Each individual has their own definition and practice.
> Thats not what definitions are about.
>> Personally for me frugality means being able to live with in the >> income earned.
> Thats not frugality. Frugality involves a lot more than just that, > most obviously when the income is substantial and its just frittered > away on baubles etc.
It's a good working definition for her situation. But feel free to expand it to a more universal definition if you want to.
>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss. >> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed.
> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs.
Internet.
>> Then we looked at what that had been costing us per month >> and realized that for the same money we could have purchased >> a great many DVDs. So instead of a $100 plus a month for >> satellite, we now spend maybe $20 a month on DVDs from >> the $5 rack at the discount department store.
Streaming video over a high speed internet connection is even cheaper.
>> Most >> groceries will slice the ham for you. I have the ham sliced at the >> grocery, take it home, wrap it for freezing and then it is used as >> needed with out spoilage.
> Makes more sense to get a slicer at a yard sale or ebay.
Slicing is free at the Grocery store. At least around here.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Vandy Terre wrote >>> There was a thread started over the impossibility of definition of frugality. >>> IMO, defining frugality is much like defining personal religion. >>> Each individual has their own definition and practice. >> Thats not what definitions are about. >>> Personally for me frugality means being able to live with in the income earned. >> Thats not frugality. Frugality involves a lot more than just that, most obviously >> when the income is substantial and its just frittered away on baubles etc. > It's a good working definition for her situation.
Nope, particularly with her approach to repairing clothes when they are so cheap to replace for peanuts from yard sales and charity shops etc instead of getting a job etc.
> But feel free to expand it to a more universal definition if you want to.
I've always said it isnt really feasible to do any better than use a dictionary.
>>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss. >>> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed. >> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs. > Internet.
You dont know that she bothers and thats not as good anyway, particularly with docos etc.
>>> Then we looked at what that had been costing us per month >>> and realized that for the same money we could have purchased >>> a great many DVDs. So instead of a $100 plus a month for >>> satellite, we now spend maybe $20 a month on DVDs from >>> the $5 rack at the discount department store. > Streaming video over a high speed internet connection is even cheaper.
But a high speed net connection may not be in her situation.
>>> Most groceries will slice the ham for you. I have the ham >>> sliced at the grocery, take it home, wrap it for freezing >>> and then it is used as needed with out spoilage.
>> Makes more sense to get a slicer at a yard sale or ebay. > Slicing is free at the Grocery store. At least around here.
Nope, it doesnt last as long sliced at the store as it does slicing it yourself as required.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss. >>>>> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed. >>>> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs. >>> Internet. >> You dont know that she bothers and thats not as good anyway, particularly with docos etc. > docos?
Documentarys.
> I have never considered TV to be a necessary source of news and information.
Never said it was.
> Besides the internet, there is also radio and the news paper.
> Gordon wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss. >>>>>> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed.
>>>>> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs.
>>>> Internet.
>>> You dont know that she bothers and thats not as good anyway, >>> particularly with docos etc.
>> docos?
> Documentarys.
>> I have never considered TV to be a necessary source of news and >> information.
> Never said it was.
>> Besides the internet, there is also radio and the news paper.
> And you dont know that she bothers with either.
I'm just saying that those sources are available. unless she weighs in, neither of us will know what she does or does not bother with. You can lead a horse to water...
This is all getting rather pointless. The fact is that there are 4 good sources of news and current events. Just because an individual has cut themselves off from one of those sources does not mean they are deprived of all news and current events.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Gordon wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss. >>>>>>> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed. >>>>>> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs. >>>>> Internet. >>>> You dont know that she bothers and thats not as good anyway, particularly with docos etc. >>> docos? >> Documentarys. >>> I have never considered TV to be a necessary source of news and information. >> Never said it was. >>> Besides the internet, there is also radio and the news paper. >> And you dont know that she bothers with either. > I'm just saying that those sources are available.
You dont know she bothers with either.
> unless she weighs in, neither of us will know what she does or does not bother with.
Its obvious that she's terminally pig ignorant, so she clearly doesnt, or at least bothers with either that are other than steaming turds, anyway.
> You can lead a horse to water...
Indeed, but if there is no water available...
> This is all getting rather pointless.
Yep, you havent contributed a damned thing.
> The fact is that there are 4 good sources of news and current events.
You dont know she bothers with any of them, or than all 4 are available to her either.
> Just because an individual has cut themselves off from one of those > sources does not mean they are deprived of all news and current events.
> Another place I see a lot of money wasted is at the grocery. Luncheon meat is > expensive and usually heavier in fat than home cooked meat. Look at the price > per pound on a whole frozen turkey and compare it to turkey luncheon meat. Is > it really that hard to home cook the turkey, bone it, and slice it?
It may well be. How many hours does this represent? What's your marginal rate ( assuming you can sell labor instead of consuming it yourself)?
> Besides > that luncheon meat does not come with separated dark/ light meat or organ meat. > Look at the price of a whole ham verses luncheon meat. Most groceries will > slice the ham for you. I have the ham sliced at the grocery, take it home, wrap > it for freezing and then it is used as needed with out spoilage.
Right now, Wally World has $3.00 7 oz packages of thin sliced meat. I go through a couple of those per week. It's hardly worth squeezing a buck or two out of my weekly budget with something packaged differently.
>> unless she weighs in, neither of us will know what she does or does >> not bother with.
> Its obvious that she's terminally pig ignorant, so she clearly doesnt, > or at least bothers with either that are other than steaming turds, > anyway.
>> You can lead a horse to water...
> Indeed, but if there is no water available...
>> This is all getting rather pointless.
> Yep, you havent contributed a damned thing.
No, you are too blind or ignorent to see the contributions
>> The fact is that there are 4 good sources of news and current events.
> You dont know she bothers with any of them, or than all 4 are > available to her either.
As I said above...
>> Just because an individual has cut themselves off from one of those >> sources does not mean they are deprived of all news and current >> events.
<va...@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote: > Some would say I would earn more if I >worked outside the home. I say not. If you turn the time I spend repairing >clothing, harvesting gardens, collecting eggs into dollars not spent at some >shop, I am earning better than I could working somewhere else. Plus, I am here >for the children when they return from school or if they have need of a parent >during the day.
That is true. One parent should stay home with the children, and it usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income. Just more money for the tax man to take from. In fact, a family would pay less income tax if only one partner worked, or one partner made MUCH less than the other one. If both partners made about the same income, then the tax rate would be much higher (this I learned from a tax class I took in law school - the only thing I really retained from that class).
Plus, the savings on gas and car usage (you might even be able to have ONE CAR!). In addition, isn't time with your children priceless? Two parents who work is not a frugal situation since all the extra money that is made is spent on childcare, babysitting, fast food, gas, car repairs, taxes, etc. People never think about that. I believe most people want to work to get away from their kids, which is strange, because why have kids in the first place if they're raised by strangers?
>I see too many people playing the 'keep up with the Jones' game and needing to >work two jobs per adult to manage it. Where is the time to enjoy the extras >purchased with that income if you are working two jobs? Does the family really >_need_ that boat or four wheeler or expensive car?
No, the excuse now is HEALTH CARE! Imagine if America had socialized medicine, maybe, just maybe one parent might stay home to raise the kids. But probably not, Americans are selfish.
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:26:29 -0500, Vandy Terre > <va...@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote:
>> Some would say I would earn more if I >>worked outside the home. I say not. If you turn the time I spend >>repairing >>clothing, harvesting gardens, collecting eggs into dollars not spent at >>some >>shop, I am earning better than I could working somewhere else. Plus, I am >>here >>for the children when they return from school or if they have need of a >>parent >>during the day.
> That is true. One parent should stay home with the children, and it > usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never > understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income. Just > more money for the tax man to take from. In fact, a family would pay > less income tax if only one partner worked, or one partner made MUCH > less than the other one. If both partners made about the same income, > then the tax rate would be much higher (this I learned from a tax > class I took in law school - the only thing I really retained from > that class).
> Plus, the savings on gas and car usage (you might even be able to have > ONE CAR!). In addition, isn't time with your children priceless? Two > parents who work is not a frugal situation since all the extra money > that is made is spent on childcare, babysitting, fast food, gas, car > repairs, taxes, etc. People never think about that. I believe most > people want to work to get away from their kids, which is strange, > because why have kids in the first place if they're raised by > strangers?
If you REALLY want to be frugal you don't have kids in the first place. You are neither frugal nor green if you breed.
> That is true. One parent should stay home with the children, and it > usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never > understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income
Oh, that's easy to say. And if one parent made a decent wage it might be true. But acording to the BLS, median wage in the US is $722.00 a week. which means that half the US population takes home less than that. This includes the Service sector with 14.8 millon workers who take home $475.00 per week, and the 25 million Office, sales and administrative workers with a median income of $614.00 a week. Try making a go of it at $1600 a month after taxes. At these levesl having both spouses work is a necessity.
> Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> wrote >> One parent should stay home with the children, and it usually >> is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never >> understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income > Oh, that's easy to say.
Easy to do, too.
> And if one parent made a decent wage it might be true.
And thats completely trivial to do too.
> But acording to the BLS, median wage in the US is $722.00 a week. > which means that half the US population takes home less than that.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
> This includes the Service sector with 14.8 millon workers who > take home $475.00 per week, and the 25 million Office, sales and > administrative workers with a median income of $614.00 a week.
They're always welcome to get qualified for better paying jobs than that.
> Try making a go of it at $1600 a month after taxes.
Hordes do that fine.
> At these levels having both spouses work is a necessity.
<go...@alltomyself.com> wrote: >Oh, that's easy to say. And if one parent made a decent wage it >might be true. But acording to the BLS, median wage in the US >is $722.00 a week. which means that half the US population takes >home less than that. This includes the Service sector with 14.8 >millon workers who take home $475.00 per week, and the 25 million >Office, sales and administrative workers with a median income of >$614.00 a week. Try making a go of it at $1600 a month after taxes. >At these levesl having both spouses work is a necessity.
I don't believe so. My father made it on less than that with 5 kids (and it wasn't that long ago). Of course my mom didn't work, and we had one car. We had a small house, never ate out,and never had alot of amenities.
Of course I will say that he had good health insurance through his unionized work (did not pay a cent for his insurance coverage, until right at the end before he died and then retired). See, it's the fucking health insurance premiums that make MOST people have to work. Socialize the medicine and you no longer pay the 1000 month premiums. Imagine! if you save a 1000 per month, one spouse could EASILY stay home.
But...but...but the taxes! I will be taxed to death. Hogwash. No you won't. The tax code is set up for married couples with one spouse staying home or making alot less money than the other spouse (run the numbers if you don't believe me). So even when the taxes go up under socialized medicine, if one spouse stays home, they will still come out ahead than if both spouses worked to pay off the current insurance companies' extortions.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:15:52 +0000 (UTC), Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote: >I'm just saying that those sources are available. unless she >weighs in, neither of us will know what she does or does not >bother with. You can lead a horse to water...
Re-read the first post. I stated I used the internet for weather and news. At least I intended to do so. The local paper is a weekly full of mostly church bulletins, not a great source of information.
>This is all getting rather pointless. The fact is that there >are 4 good sources of news and current events. Just because >an individual has cut themselves off from one of those sources >does not mean they are deprived of all news and current events.
I cut myself off from satellite television. The land cuts me off from signal radio/ television. Cable is not available this far back in the woods.
I don't care how many murders occurred in some big city or elsewhere. I moved out into the sticks for a reason. The information I care about is usually available through internet. But I don't get on the internet everyday. I don't really worry about much of the world beyond this area, there is not much I can change. I do worry about weather patterns, economic patterns, health issues. These are things that do affect my life. Why worry about constantly seeing or hearing advertisements for products that I neither need or want?
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:19:12 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote: >Vandy Terre wrote: ><snip>
>> Another place I see a lot of money wasted is at the grocery. Luncheon meat is >> expensive and usually heavier in fat than home cooked meat. Look at the price >> per pound on a whole frozen turkey and compare it to turkey luncheon meat. Is >> it really that hard to home cook the turkey, bone it, and slice it?
>It may well be. How many hours does this represent? What's your >marginal rate ( assuming you can sell labor instead of consuming it >yourself)?
An hour to two to cook, maybe half an hour to bone/ slice/ package for later use. I usually start it (frozen turkey) to cook at low heat (300f) before going to bed. I will handle the rest of the task while watching a DVD. This is not part of my 'work' day, this is my 'free' time.
>> Besides >> that luncheon meat does not come with separated dark/ light meat or organ meat. >> Look at the price of a whole ham verses luncheon meat. Most groceries will >> slice the ham for you. I have the ham sliced at the grocery, take it home, wrap >> it for freezing and then it is used as needed with out spoilage.
>Right now, Wally World has $3.00 7 oz packages of thin sliced meat. I go >through a couple of those per week. It's hardly worth squeezing a buck >or two out of my weekly budget with something packaged differently.
Okay, 16 oz to the pound. You are paying $3 for 7oz, which is over $6/ pound. How much of that packaged luncheon meat is water/ fat? I usually spend less than $2/ lb for turkey or ham that I will cook myself. Your two packages of luncheon meat cost about an hour labor at minimum wage and yields how many meals? For money spent I am getting more meals my way. This lets me feed four adults and two teenagers for about $400/ month by the time you add in fruits/ vegetables/ bread.
It is your choice. It is your money. I am just showing part of my method of saving a little money and improving our lives.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:18:14 -0500, Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> wrote: >On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:26:29 -0500, Vandy Terre ><va...@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote:
>> Some would say I would earn more if I >>worked outside the home. I say not. If you turn the time I spend repairing >>clothing, harvesting gardens, collecting eggs into dollars not spent at some >>shop, I am earning better than I could working somewhere else. Plus, I am here >>for the children when they return from school or if they have need of a parent >>during the day.
>That is true. One parent should stay home with the children, and it >usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never >understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income. Just >more money for the tax man to take from. In fact, a family would pay >less income tax if only one partner worked, or one partner made MUCH >less than the other one. If both partners made about the same income, >then the tax rate would be much higher (this I learned from a tax >class I took in law school - the only thing I really retained from >that class).
I work at home. My 'income' is not in money made, but in money saved. I have added up the expenses of me working outside the home. Not such a big deal now that the youngest children are teenagers, but I still prefer to be here when they come home.
How do I save money for the family? In summer there are gardens that help feed the family. Eggs from the chickens in season. Milk from the goats in season. I make clothing for the family. I also make clothing, tents, tablecloths, aprons, simple jewelry, simple leather work, candles, ornaments to sell. I mend existing clothing, backpacks, anything made from cloth that will fit under the sewing machine.
>Plus, the savings on gas and car usage (you might even be able to have >ONE CAR!). In addition, isn't time with your children priceless? Two >parents who work is not a frugal situation since all the extra money >that is made is spent on childcare, babysitting, fast food, gas, car >repairs, taxes, etc. People never think about that. I believe most >people want to work to get away from their kids, which is strange, >because why have kids in the first place if they're raised by >strangers?
I do have a vehicle for my use. There is one motor vehicle per licensed driver in this family. Why? Because we live too far from any taxi service, bus line or railroad. Too far to walk for anything that can not be grown or made here at the farm.
I have raised my own children, not like some authorities would like. I honestly believe a child should know how to cook, clean, read as young as possible. That child should also have a working knowledge basic first aid, poisonous snake/ spider identification, how to start and maintain a fire for heat and/ or cooking, eatable wild plants. Calling 911 is great when the telephone is working. During a bad storm that may not be happening.
>>I see too many people playing the 'keep up with the Jones' game and needing to >>work two jobs per adult to manage it. Where is the time to enjoy the extras >>purchased with that income if you are working two jobs? Does the family really >>_need_ that boat or four wheeler or expensive car?
>No, the excuse now is HEALTH CARE! Imagine if America had socialized >medicine, maybe, just maybe one parent might stay home to raise the >kids. But probably not, Americans are selfish.
Health care should be better education on self maintenance. The USA has become dependent on licensed health care practitioners. I believe in licensed practitioners. I more strongly believe in learning how to take care of yourself to avoid illness and injury. I was considered wrong because I taught my children to work in at least pairs and to use proper protective gear. The other choice was to let them run wild. I preferred to teach them how to do useful jobs and chores. Entertainment was reading a book, identifying trees/ wild flowers/ insects/ wildlife, building a play area and playing in it.
I once read a science fiction novel where the main character had been frozen for decades and then defrosted. This character was having trouble finding a job to meet the expenses of 'modern' living, then he found the under-city where life style was much like now. In the under-city this character was able to live comfortably on the income he could easily earn, he just had to give up the fancier toys of the 'modern' society. We have modern toys like computers, digital cameras, ipods. We do not have a four-wheeler, a boat, a motor vehicle less than 6 years of age, a camper, a cabin at the lake or the like.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:31:59 -0500, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote: >If you REALLY want to be frugal you don't have kids in the first place. You >are neither frugal nor green if you breed.
If I don't have 'kids', I don't have milk. LOL I keep milk goats.
I believe you mean 'children'. If you do not wish to have children that is your right. Any one that does have children needs to be responsible for those children.
What is the point in life at all if no one has any children? Without children there is not much future. The species of humans would disappear if no one had children. No one should have children just to qualify for some government benefit. I wish parenting could be limited to only those who truly wish to have children because they enjoy teaching and raising those children.
> Vandy Terre <va...@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote >> h <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote >> The species of humans would disappear if no one had children. > And that would be bad, why?
There'd be no one to feed the cats and dogs, silly.
>Socialize the medicine and you no longer pay the 1000 month premiums. >Imagine! if you save a 1000 per month, one spouse could EASILY stay >home. >But...but...but the taxes! I will be taxed to death. Hogwash. No you >won't. [ ... ]
To quote you, show references (not just Obama/Pelosi press releases).
Money to pay for all that health care has to come from somewhere, and the only source of money the government has is taxpayers. That's also assuming there are any doctors left to provide the care.
The quickest way to reduce the cost of health care is tort reform-- which does not appear in the House-passed monstrosity based on all reports.
Gary
-- Gary Heston ghes...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/ "Where large, expensive pieces of exotic woods are converted to valueless, hard to dispose of sawdust, chips and scraps." Charlie B.s' definition of woodworking.
Vandy Terre wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:19:12 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip> > Okay, 16 oz to the pound. You are paying $3 for 7oz, which is over $6/ pound. > How much of that packaged luncheon meat is water/ fat? I usually spend less > than $2/ lb for turkey or ham that I will cook myself. Your two packages of > luncheon meat cost about an hour labor at minimum wage and yields how many > meals? For money spent I am getting more meals my way. This lets me feed four > adults and two teenagers for about $400/ month by the time you add in fruits/ > vegetables/ bread.
Ah. There's the magic - four teenagers. Yes, my wife and I used to do similar things when we had kids at home.
> It is your choice. It is your money. I am just showing part of my method of > saving a little money and improving our lives.
I am not sure I could consume an entire turkey by myself in a year. I'm in TDY status right now.
> Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> wrote >> Socialize the medicine and you no longer pay the 1000 month premiums. >> Imagine! if you save a 1000 per month, one spouse could EASILY stay home. >> But...but...but the taxes! I will be taxed to death. Hogwash. No you won't. [ ... ] > To quote you, show references (not just Obama/Pelosi press releases).
> Money to pay for all that health care has to come from somewhere,
Yes.
> and the only source of money the government has is taxpayers.
Wrong. It can also come from what is currently being pissed against the wall on all the paper shuffling monkeys in the insurance empires and the advertising they do, etc etc etc.
THATS the reason the US spends TWICE the percentage of GDP that every other modern first world country does on health care.
> That's also assuming there are any doctors left to provide the care.
There always are, every time any country has got a clue and given up on having just an insurance system.
> The quickest way to reduce the cost of health care is tort reform--
Wrong, thats a trivial part of total health care costs.
> which does not appear in the House-passed monstrosity based on all reports.
Because its a trivial part of total health care costs.
