Definitions of Frugality
Vandy Terre
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.
Rod Speed
> 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.
Gordon
news:7lj2e3F...@mid.individual.net:
> 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. 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 <rod.sp...@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.
Gordon
>>>> 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?
I have never considered TV to be a necessary source of news and
information. Besides the internet, there is also radio and
the news paper.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@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.
Gordon
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 <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Gordon wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@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.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
Les Cargill
<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)?
> 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.
--
Les Cargill
Gordon
> Gordon wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Gordon wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@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.
Oh look, in the very next sentence I say the same thing.
>
>> 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.
>
> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>
>
Are you?
Napoleon
<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.
h
"Napoleon" <ana...@666yes.net> wrote in message
news:etqef5983tu9a9nlt...@4ax.com...
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.
Gordon
news:etqef5983tu9a9nlt...@4ax.com:
> 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.
Rod Speed
> 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.
Wrong, as always.
Napoleon
<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.
h
"Gordon" <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBDE3EAC396...@94.75.244.51...
No problem. I make less than that BEFORE taxes.
Vandy Terre
>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?
Vandy Terre
>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.
Vandy Terre
>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.
Vandy Terre
>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.
h
"Vandy Terre" <va...@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote in message
news:8h3hf51c2rglphhiu...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:31:59 -0500, "h" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> The species of humans would disappear if no one had
> children.
And that would be bad, why?
Rod Speed
> Vandy Terre <va...@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote
>> h <tmc...@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.
Gary Heston
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, 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 ghe...@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.
Les Cargill
> 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.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> 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).
http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BCF5AFEB9-A475-46A1-B7D0-03101DFB87D5%7D
> 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.
Marsha
> Vandy Terre wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:19:12 -0500, Les Cargill
>> 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.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
Huh? I think she said four ADULTS and two TEENAGERS.
Marsha
Marsha
> In article <7a6gf5pi473mfh8n4...@4ax.com>,
> 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, 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
>
I think I love you :-) No where in the health bill is tort reform
addressed, which is an absolute necessity. Also, I don't see personal
responsibility addressed. If some drug abuser or smoker or
non-compliant with medication person who decides not to follow
instructions, keeps coming to the ER for chest pain, etc., I don't want
to keep paying for that idiot's repeated stupidity.
Marsha
Les Cargill
Yes, he did. Point stands.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Gary Heston wrote:
>> In article <7a6gf5pi473mfh8n4...@4ax.com>,
>> 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, 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.
> I think I love you :-)
Get a room.
> No where in the health bill is tort reform addressed,
Yes, because it will be hard enough to get thru congress without it.
> which is an absolute necessity.
Nope, its only a small part of total health care costs.
Worth fixing, but that can happen after the current bill gets thru congress.
> Also, I don't see personal responsibility addressed.
Because its not even possible.
> If some drug abuser or smoker or non-compliant with medication person who decides not to follow instructions, keeps
> coming to the ER for chest pain, etc., I don't
> want to keep paying for that idiot's repeated stupidity.
So what do you propose to say to the obese, 'fuck off and die' ?
m...@privacy.net
>Now, you know that isn't going to happen as long as the lawyers
>keep paying for the demogocrats' elections for them and as long as the
>demogocrats keep sucking up to the lawyers to get their elections paid
>for. You just like seeing the free lunch potatoheads get their panties
>all bunched up, don't you?
Hmmm.... seems to me like the Repubs had OVER 8
previous ears to do something abt healthcare and never
did.
Cindy Hamilton
> What is the point in life at all if no one has any children?
What is the point in life if you're reduced to your DNA?
> Without children there is not much future.
Globally, or locally? I think I can count on plenty of people to
keep the species going.
Or do you think that there's no future for oneself without
children? Nobody has a future beyond death.
> The species of humans would disappear if no one had
> children.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Provided there are enough people around to ensure the
infrastructure that I desire, I don't care whether the human
race survives or not. Just don't all drop dead and leave
me to clean it up.
> 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.
I wish there were a parenting fitness test that had to be
passed before one could have children.
Cindy Hamilton
Coffee's For Closers
ana...@666yes.net says...
> That is true. One parent should stay home with the children,
I've encountered some mothers who should have had jobs. Staying
home with the kids created a toxic fantasy world for them. They
(the mothers) never really matured, because they didn't have to
deal with other adults, and could engage in constant bullying
without consequences. They also lacked any understanding of the
connection between labour and money.
Those women were in deep trouble when middle-aged divorce forced
them to go out into the big, bad world and get jobs. Absolutely
flipping out, with the anger and self-pity off the scale.
The ones who remained married, simply remained immature and
ignorant, and very, very, boring.
The now-grown kids ended up permanently damaged, too.
> and it usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never
> understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income.
I could never understand why any adult should be enslaved to
support another adult who just doesn't feel like working. I've
never felt entitled to leech off of anyone.
> 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?
I find the freedom of NOT having kids to be priceless. And the
freedom of NOT being dependent upon a husband is also 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.
Kids simply aren't frugal, in any situation.
> 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?
Because, when they decided to have the kids - or, rather, when
the kids just "happened" without serious consideration or
decision-making... the parents didn't know how annoying those
kids would be.
> >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?
There is also social pressure to be married and have kids. A lot
of this is based on envy from people who are trapped by those
things having "happened" without serious consideration or
decision-making.
> Imagine if America had socialized
> medicine, maybe, just maybe one parent might stay home to raise the
> kids. But probably not, Americans are selfish.
Using one's kids as a meal-ticket to avoid employment is selfish.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Coffee's For Closers
ana...@666yes.net says...
> 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).
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.
Except for the single people.
And the responsible married adults who don't wish to leech off of
their spouse. Or whose spouse refuses to allow leeching.
> 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.
So, you would prefer that the single people be extorted by the
taxman to subsidise the non-working half of married couples?
So, instead of just leeching off of her husband, the housewife is
also entitled to leech off of single working women?
Coffee's For Closers
ghe...@hiwaay.net says...
> Money to pay for all that health care has to come from somewhere, and
> the only source of money the government has is taxpayers.
As long as it some other taxpayor being extorted, then the
gimmie-gimmie types are convinced that that health care is
"free."
> That's also assuming there are any doctors left to provide
> the care.
Let's all just whine and guilt-trip them, and I am sure they will
stick around.
> 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.
Another great way to reduce the cost of health care is for people
to put down the doughnut, and get off the couch. Which does not
appear in the legislation. And also does not appear in the minds
of many people who feel entitled to "free" health care.
Rod Speed
> ana...@666yes.net says...
>> That is true. One parent should stay home with the children,
> I've encountered some mothers who should have had jobs. Staying
> home with the kids created a toxic fantasy world for them. They
> (the mothers) never really matured, because they didn't have to
> deal with other adults, and could engage in constant bullying
> without consequences. They also lacked any understanding of the
> connection between labour and money.
> Those women were in deep trouble when middle-aged divorce forced
> them to go out into the big, bad world and get jobs. Absolutely
> flipping out, with the anger and self-pity off the scale.
> The ones who remained married, simply remained immature and
> ignorant, and very, very, boring.
> The now-grown kids ended up permanently damaged, too.
>> and it usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could
>> never understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income.
> I could never understand why any adult should be enslaved
> to support another adult who just doesn't feel like working.
> I've never felt entitled to leech off of anyone.
True. But they arent leeching if they have kids, particularly till the kids finish school.
>> 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?
> I find the freedom of NOT having kids to be priceless. And the
> freedom of NOT being dependent upon a husband is also 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.
> Kids simply aren't frugal, in any situation.
That is just plain wrong. In a society that has no decent
welfare system, and you can make the kids work, they
can be quite frugal, particularly in your old age 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?
> Because, when they decided to have the kids - or, rather, when
> the kids just "happened" without serious consideration or decision-
> making... the parents didn't know how annoying those kids would be.
>>> 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?
> There is also social pressure to be married and have kids. A lot of
> this is based on envy from people who are trapped by those things
> having "happened" without serious consideration or decision-making.
Nope, its mostly not envy, they really do prefer that
situation and cant comprehend that some dont like it.
>> Imagine if America had socialized medicine, maybe,
>> just maybe one parent might stay home to raise the
>> kids. But probably not, Americans are selfish.
> Using one's kids as a meal-ticket to avoid employment is selfish.
Thats very arguable. Its much better 'work' than most of the unskilled can otherwise manage.
We have a completely stupid system where the govt pays quite
a bit of money to those who have kids, and some howl about some
having quite a few kids and living on the govt handout for them.
Its a pretty decent lifestyle in some ways. Someone else looks after them
for a decent chunk of the day while they are in school etc. Our system is
actually stupid enough to pay the woman more than she will get paid
running say a checkout in the supermarket and you're your own boss
and can do what you like and you even get to enjoy the fucking as well.
h
"Cindy Hamilton" <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87e5f21f-f473-4883...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I wish there were a parenting fitness test that had to be
>passed before one could have children.
Yup. You need a license to hunt, fish or to own a dog, but any moron can
breed. I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do
something to cause fertility. We should just toss birth control in the
water. No, wait, the breeding masses don't drink water...how about putting
it in Budweiser? If that's too extreme, how about a short "depo-provera"
hunting season each year. For 8 weeks, and you need to get a license first,
you get to run around with a depo-provera gun shooting every woman you see
who already has too many children (like more than one).
tmclone
IN.SIG> wrote:
>
> There is also social pressure to be married and have kids. A lot
> of this is based on envy from people who are trapped by those
> things having "happened" without serious consideration or
> decision-making.
>
I find the phrase, "And then the children came along" very funny.
What, were there small proto-humans just walking down the street and
you were stupid enough to invite them in? Most people spend more time
deciding where to vacation than they do deciding whether OR NOT they
want to breed. I actually had someone tell me, "But, but, you CAN'T
not have children!" Oh, really? Just watch me. My tubal turns 28 this
month!
Rod Speed
> Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> I wish there were a parenting fitness test that had to be passed before one could have children.
> Yup. You need a license to hunt, fish or to own a dog,
Not in the sense that you need to pass any fitness test to get one, just pay the fee.
> but any moron can breed.
And they will keep doing that even if you do have to pass
a parenting fitness test before its legal to have children.
> I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do something to cause fertility.
Soorree, we didnt evolve like that.
> We should just toss birth control in the water.
Those who want to breed would just stop drinking the tap water.
> No, wait, the breeding masses don't drink
> water...how about putting it in Budweiser?
Plenty of them dont drink that either.
> If that's too extreme, how about a short "depo-provera" hunting season each year. For 8 weeks, and you need to get a
> license first, you get to run around with a depo-provera gun shooting every woman you see who already has too many
> children (like more than one).
Been having those pathetic little fantasys long ?
Les Cargill
> "Cindy Hamilton" <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:87e5f21f-f473-4883...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> I wish there were a parenting fitness test that had to be
>> passed before one could have children.
>
> Yup. You need a license to hunt, fish or to own a dog, but any moron can
> breed. I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do
> something to cause fertility.
Well... you *do*, you know... :) No storks involved. I have a child who
is actually involved in research ( peripherally - pretty much data entry
duty at the undergrad level ) on rigorous experiments concerning sexual
selection, and... it just works. Almost all species have
evolved hybrid strategies.
> We should just toss birth control in the
> water. No, wait, the breeding masses don't drink water...how about putting
> it in Budweiser? If that's too extreme, how about a short "depo-provera"
> hunting season each year. For 8 weeks, and you need to get a license first,
> you get to run around with a depo-provera gun shooting every woman you see
> who already has too many children (like more than one).
>
>
"Well, man, that's like... your *opinion*, man... " - The Dude, "Big
Lebowski".
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> m...@privacy.net wrote
>> do something
> Reagan, Bush, and Bush tried to address medical malpractice reform
> as well as more general tort reform but Congress would have none of
> it. Republicans tried to bring it up in the '90's but Bubba and the
> Hillbilly would have none of it.
> Get Real: Beyond dismantling Medicare, there essentially is no "something"
> that government can do regarding health care that is not detrimental to the
> long-term prosperity and fiscal wellbeing of the nation.
Mindlessly silly. Everyone else gets health care for HALF the
percentage of GDP that the US does and does better on any
sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.
> Some of us dinosaurs believe that there is no "something" about medical
> care that is legitimately within the purview of the national government.
Who cares ? What matters is that hardly anyone agrees with you fools on that.
> Ultimately, there is no difference between medical care and food:
Wrong, as always. You are never ever in the situation where
the cost of the food you need to keep you alive will bankrupt
you and if you are desperate for food, there are always
some charitys that will hand out free food.
> Ethically, nobody has a "right" to either
Irrelevant to whether it makes sense for there to be decent arrangements
for the provision of medical services to those who will die without them
and to those who will have a much worse quality of life without them.
> and, ultimately, both are subject to the same
> supply-demand laws that govern availability and price.
Even more utterly mindlessly silly.
You can always grow your own food, you cant do your own heart bypass etc.
> I don't mind stating that I am absolutely opposed to having
> any proportion of my taxes used to subsidize medical care to
> any total stranger with whom I have absolutely no relationship.
Who cares ? Basically there arent enough fools as stupid as you to matter.
> The "something", in this discussion, though, being "tort reform":
Wrong, as always.
> While some argue that limits on jury awards would substantially
> reduce (by 10-15%) hidden costs of medical care, others argue
> that when compared to total medical costs, costs of malpractice
> litigation are insignificant (1-1�%). OF COURSE each side can
> produce data, surveys and "studies" that support its position.
There is no data that substantiates the first claim.
> In my view, tort reform is a dead puppy among the national
> political class regardless of whether left or right. All are too
> dependent on the ABA money, the distribution of influence, etc. etc.
The real reason is that its just too hard and too many of the politicians are lawyers.
> The greater issue, though, is that "reform" at the national
> level, even if restricted to medical malpractice, would
> transfer to the national government yet another body
> of law that the Constitution reserves to the states.
Wrong, as always.
> To those who would like to preserve the Republic or,
> at least, to forestall its demise this is a serious issue.
There arent enough fools that stupid to matter a damn.
> Some portion of the argument is presented here:
> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5549&type=0&sequence=2
> http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=16217
Just another couple of completely mindless steaming turds.
Napoleon
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
>He died and THEN retired?
Yes. He died, and the next day his retirement came through.
>Except for the single people.
True. But single people would save a hell of alot with socialized
medicine too. Single people pay premiums, which they would no longer
need to do.
>And the responsible married adults who don't wish to leech off of
>their spouse. Or whose spouse refuses to allow leeching.
What's leeching? What's the point of getting married if everyone is
living separately? One spouse takes care of the home (and children if
there are any) and the other works for the man. You call that
leeching? Mighty sad if you do.
>So, you would prefer that the single people be extorted by the
>taxman to subsidise the non-working half of married couples?
I don't prefer anything. I'm telling you how the tax code is set up -
and that ain't going to change. The tax code is social engineering,
just like everything else.
>So, instead of just leeching off of her husband, the housewife is
>also entitled to leech off of single working women?
Here we go again with the leeching. Have a problem with the tax code
take it up with congress, and good luck with that.
h
"Balvenieman" <balve...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:zuudne87idHlh2fX...@earthlink.com...
>
> "h" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>
>> I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do
>>something to cause fertility
> sterilized and then, at maturity (certainly no younger than 30-35),
> required to follow some procedure to get unsterilized. Which begs the
> question: Who determines the standards and the procedure? It could be
> argued that each couple should be limited to two progeny, thereby
> replacing each parent and maintaining stable population. The World, as
> we all know, being perfect premature deaths would compensate for
> accidental pregnancies and births. The irony of voluntary population
> control is that those citizens who are willing, voluntarily, to limit
> their progeny, for the sake of the planet's wellbeing AWA that of future
> generations, are likely to be the very ones that society most needs.
> That is to say, they are those who are intellectually more capable of
> perceiving and addressing a problem with some expectation of resolving
> it and, implicitly, the ones more capable of raising competent children.
> Unfortunately, while those enlightened citizens conscienciously eschew
> reproduction, the less capable and/or insightful will continue to breed
> like field mice resulting in a population topheavy with carjackers,
> viewers of "The View", and Golgafrinchians. So: Waddayagonnadoo? You
> can't just shoot the bastards....
> --
Yup. Human intelligence is self-limiting be stupid people do the vast
majority of the breeding.