Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I said this earlier when we were talking about small trucks but I’ll repeat it: we are now officially babying DH’s 2009 Ford Ranger because he can’t go out and get another one like it. He now uses our other car whenever possible for short hops, and even longer hops when he clears it with me that I won’t need that car.
it’s really too bad.
Yes, I remember earlier discussions about your husband and maybe Bea thinking they would like a smaller pickup, which is one reason why I put up the Telo pickup photo. I'm looking at the little Ford Maverick as my Tacoma replacement. Seems that the auto industry recognized a market for the smaller compact pickups and there are a few new things in the works with rumors of Toyota and other places coming out with new smaller models. Reports I've seen say that the big pickups are not selling well these days, although the F-150 will probably always be a favorite?
WarningL just a ramble. If I have a real point, I don't know exactly what it is... other than truck size is sometimes just a happenstance, not social commentary! When we went looking a few years ago for a "normal" sized used pickup in our (quite low) price range, we were really discouraged by the offerings and prices. We ended up with a giant F350 extended bed/cab that is waaayyy too much for our needs but so affordable as to make that moot. It's also pretty ugly with a few dents, and we are pretty "meh" about transport vehicle looks, so... Around here we see a lot of big pickups. Not many small ones. Haven't seen a cyber truck here other than passing through. DH likes his big truck, whilst I would appreciate one that will fit into a single parking space and navigate coffee drive-thrus! The Telo is cute, but out of our budget, and I'm frankly not convinced that an electric vehicle would serve us well. We can stockpile some gas against an emergency, but we can't stockpile electric. I know it's possible with solar/wind and batteries, but again, not us, not now. IL, I'm wondering why would a 2009 truck needs babied? Our Ford is a 1998, has over 300K miles (brought it from a carny) and runs just fine. No snark there, and I know the 350 is built to do serious crap. But I would (quite possibly erroneously) think that Ford trucks used for their intended purpose should have similar life-spans. But I'm not a car/truck person, in general, so what do I know?
Our GMC Sonoma lasted 23 years...a 2020 model and we donated it to company that refurbishes them and sells low to working people in need. Replaced it with a Honda ridgeline- much bigger than I thought but the Ranger felt cheap. The sonoma was Posh for us, but had a stick shift. We use the Ridgeline as our main car and baby the 2007 Ford Focus Station wagon. it has 190,00 miles and our mechanic thinks it has another hundred thou. in it, but dumb stuff is breaking- door handles etc.
Well, as I've mentioned before, DH has a 2004 Avalanche that we bought in 2019. He would never buy a new pick-up because then you're freaking out every time you load it up with brush and tools.
There is serious cognitive dissonance, however, that occurs when people meet DH and then see his truck. DH is very, very dapper, especially by Vermont standards--pea coats and boat shoes, and starched cotton shirts. Conversely, his truck can't even get inspected in Vermont because of the rust. The windows work sometimes. The 4-wheel drive works when it feels like it. The passenger window never works. The right rear door never works. Jed Clampett would turn down the chance to buy that truck.
DH knows he has a reputation for having an ego and he plays to that. One time he was talking with a friend of his from church, and he said playfully, "It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am." And his friend replied, "No, it isn't. I've seen your truck."
Ya, we've had a couple of those. Our first truck (in the late 70s) was an early 60s dodge crew cab in bright orange - the bits that weren't rust, at least -, with flapping fenders and a stick shift that had no second gear. First was fine, third was fine, you had to get the RPMs up in first and pop it into third, and it was good to go. We used that to set up at antique shows for several years, until the gas tank could no longer be repaired and the holes in the floorboards threatened to eat one of the children, and we sold it on. catherine, your DH sounds pretty cool.Quote:
Jed Clampett would turn down the chance to buy that truck.
The first thing we ever bought for our Victorian house project Victoria house renovation project was a used garage door. That was ridiculous, we didn’t know any better but it was really cheap. We bought that in 1989 and we didn’t get a garage until 2005. By then the garage door was long goneQuote:
Originally Posted by early morning
But the second thing we bought was an old rusty yellow Toyota truck, and that was a useful purchase.
I guess we are babying this Ford truck because we don’t know how long it’ll go. We don’t have a good track record with vehicles over 100,000 miles and it’s at 100,000 miles. It is already been in one car crash, and it was “totaled “by the insurance company but we had the frame straightened and have been driving it for several years.
When we were only 23, we bought a 1903 Sears catalog house in downtown San Antonio with the naive hopes of restoring it. During that time, DH bought a used bright yellow Toyota truck with black accents that we called the Bumblebee. Memories of vehicles past...he wants a truck so much now but not one of the behemoth ones. A little one...there is such a market but not much choice.
I think "Nelly Belle" (DH's nickname for the Avalanche) has 240,000k. I swear the Prius is going to be the last car I ever own. It has 155,000. I only drive about 5-6k miles a year, so that can easily get me 10 more years, and by then the kids will be demanding I give up my keys. We'll see how that goes. As you mentioned, I don't really have much control over accidents, at least the ones that I'm not to blame for. So a little good luck is taken for granted here. But I really don't want to buy another car for myself. I'm pretty sure a replacement for Nelly Belle is in DH's future, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Catherine, that is so funny about your dapper husband and his beat up truck. In a way that cements his mystique, That dichotomy.
Way off topic…ha!
okay---as i said elsewhere on this board, i recently acquired a '79 k10 pickup from a local rancher/farmer, who'd had it sitting with a broken motor & other stuff, for prolly a year. He'd owned it since 2007, used it in and on the farm, and replaced it with a 75-model k20. He gave the tailgate away to a friend, and used the alternator on the 75. But yeah----sitting in his driveway was a very late-model something or other Monster Pickup, all clean and shiny. Don't wanna get that beauty dirty & dented, doing chores. Nope. to be continued...
Okay----I "forgot" to tell you kids about another classic chevy C-30 that I purchased last fall. It's another "fixer upper" that I started working on last week. Its an 81 C20, former bell tell lift truck. But yeah--it has a "bucket" which extends about 30' in the air. It's got a damn good motor in 'er, buddy. Thing just needs some work. I removed the exhaust system a previous owner had put on it; I changed the drivers' and passenger door, for some used, but good used, doors I've had here for 20 years. To be continued on this......,.
Up 228,000 in March jobs report.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
I'm thinking it will take a while for all the tariff ordeals to filter down to the consumer buying level and employment or unemployment figures. A news brief I saw to day was a concern in Europe that China will start unloading cheap Chinese products on their markets, now.
Attachment 6299
Here is another thing affected by the crazy president. This is one article among many about the "dumping of US debt" and its effect on the economy.
https://www.france24.com/en/business...-tariffs-trump
This article has a little more explanation and is not quite as the sky is falling right now.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/20...against-the-us
it is all so ugh, this financial world stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetana3
I have to admit that the cartoon Roger displays in post # 255 is a bit about me.
I just wish he would as gone! I miss Biden! The constant chaos now is wearing!
The markets do not like instability.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Trump is infuriating. Biden was just depressing. For that last year or two he was president only in the sense that those Blue Origin ladies were crew members.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
It is a little nauseating to see all the coverup participants cashing in with book deals.
The stock market was the highest ever. He handed trump a great economy that is now going down the toilet. Biden tried to help people, unlike trump who is now taking a chainsaw to our government and causing chaos and havoc. trump said he was going to be a dictator on day one. He is following through …Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I see where there will be a vote on Congress soon to stop funding NPR and PBS. They get the majority of their funding from corporate sponsors and private donors, but what the news is saying is that it would affect coverage to some of the stations in more rural areas and there would be cutbacks. I depend on NPR as a primary source of news. Not so much so for PBS, but their hosting of Masterpiece and kids programing are popular, and the Ken Burns series and other programs are favorites. Their news features are admittedly leaning a bit to the left, but not a whole lot. I could understand where it might be on the fringe of government responsibilities to fund TV and Radio that might not be terribly different from ABC or NBC, but without the annoying ads and mostly worthless programing. In the big scheme of cutbacks it might not top the list, but an an unfortunate. Maybe it won't pass.
Trump's big post,
"REPUBLICANS MUST DEFUND AND TOTALLY DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM NPR & PBS, THE RADICAL LEFT 'MONSTERS' THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!"
The major indexes were their “highest ever” in the November-February period after Biden’s lame duck status was priced in. Not that I think short term stock performance correlates all that closely with presidential policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
I do think presidents can affect the economy for better or worse, especially in the long term, but it’s only one set of factors out of many. If Trump actually follows through on his tariff bluster, it could be one of the most significant acts of economic self-sabotage since the New Deal.
What bedeviled the Biden people on the economic front was voters simply refusing to believe the spin that the recovery from the Covid period was due to the Administration’s masterful handling of the economy. Calling a massive spending bill the Inflation Reduction Act didn’t help their credibility much either.
Some could quibble over the Biden policies and the record stock market and prospering economy. One point of view is that Trump 1.0 ran a hot economy with tax breaks and historically low interest rates rates, and it took Biden four years to fix Trumps blunder's and the after effects of covid. It's the view I have, but there's room for pontification otherwise.
However, in Trump's case there's little room for discussion. Trump's tariffs and instability are heading us into a recession. Common expert thought is 50-60% chance. And that's not including the more remote odds of a collapse of the bond market. I've not heard talk of China dumping their US bonds, but I'll bet it's crossed their minds.
Maybe AOC will have to fix the Trump 2.0 mess: - )
1. So apparently Musk has gutted AmeriCorps, putting 75% of the employees on leave. Three of my kids were active participants of AmeriCorps. It's a great program that benefits many communities and gives young people a chance to serve in meaningful ways. This is a real shame.
2. Tonight I went to University of Vermont for a Master Gardener meeting. When we got a tour of the helpline office, the director of the program told us that one of the resources that the MGs used to be able to consult for advice and guidance, who happened to be a an agribulstural research scientist, has been let go due to DOGE cuts.
I do not understand the purpose of culling vast numbers of public servants without discerning the value they provide to the social fabric. It is making me sick.
I am also feeling ill about all this as if I can't quite wake up from a bad dream.Quote:
It is making me sick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Anything I say as an objective observation about this whole phenomenon will seem like I’m defending it, and I’m not, but I will push forward anyway.
I can’t speak to Americorps. But for the other thing, I would imagine that and many other services like that have been taken over by the federal government. If they’re important to a state, the state needs to fund it. States will say “we can’t afford it. “
The states have been balancing their budget on the back of the federal government. Most of our 50 states have balanced budget requirements. The federal government does not. Look where that’s got us.
I am not saying that budgets shouldn't be scrutinized but the problem is they aren't being scrutinized.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
As far as AmeriCorps goes, by definition it is a Federal program. But for very little government investment it yielded a tremendous amount of social service where it's needed. For example, my daughter's first job out of college was working, through AmeriCorps, to support a NYC NGO that provides food pantries and soup kitchens to New Yorkers living in poverty. She worked full time and her AmeriCorps stipend was $2k a month. She lived in Manhattan for $2k a month! I was so proud of her but still don't know how she did it (although the seedy co-housing apartments she lived in in nasty Brooklyn neighborhoods was a clue). So it was a win-win-win-win. Win for the government--they simply supported the NGO with a small investment. Win for the NGO, they got the support they needed. Win for the idealistic college grad--getting a small amount of money to help other people. Win for the people they all helped. I guess you could say you don't like the fact that your taxpayer dollars, as a MO resident, fed poor people in NY, but I'm sure there are worthwhile programs in MO that my VT taxpayer dollars have gone to support.
But the bottom line is, I hate this slash-and-burn methodology.
We could take this discussion agency by agency and say that they all belong to the states, but in many cases in which DOGE has had their way, that just isn't reasonable or feasible.
Would it be reasonable to imagine then, that our federal taxes will decrease and our state taxes increase as they reconfigure programs?Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Perhaps, at least your state taxes would increase. I would want any excess federal money to go to the national debt. so if there are savings, put it to good use as Dave Ramsey would say about our household budgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by KayLR
And state budgets and legislators are closer to us, we can look with better scrutiny at state programs and services.
[QUOTE=iris lilies;445046]Perhaps, at least your state taxes would increase. I would want any excess federal money to go to the national debt. so if there are savings, put it to good use as Dave Ramsey would say about our household budgets.
And state budgets and legislators are closer to us, we can look with better scrutiny at state programs and services.[/QUOTE]
Dream on…. You are also forgetting economies of scale.
[QUOTE=frugal-one;445060]And you are forgetting the bureaucrats’ regulations that turn a $20 hammer into a $165 hammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
[QUOTE=iris lilies;445066]It will only get worse IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
At one time I was in charge of ordering laboratory supplies for a private lab with a big company. If an order came in with damaged product or something sent in mistake, I was told not to return it if the value was less than $75. And that was sometime ago. The explanation was that the paper work and time going through purchasing, arranging for return shipping, shipping and packaging costs, and any accounting for overhead might be as much as $75.
No expert opinions on those expensive hammers and toilets the government buys, but there are some accounting tricks that could make those things seem unreasonably expensive if someone wants to make a point.
Oh, sure, errors and damages in procurement can cost a lot to resolve. My department spent $2.5 million annually in library acquisitions and damaged shipments oR incorrect ones were often refunded by the vendors without returning the bad product. Too expensive for them to do otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I have read that regulations add much to the cost of these government buying contracts. Congress and the regulatory bodies do it to themselves demanding materials be sourced from a specific place and in a specific way. And then there are the requirements for using minority-owned businesses. I remember at my workplace for one painting job we went through 3 minority-owned painting companies before we could get someone to show up to fulfill their contract.
How many small businesses do ya’ll know are in the wife’s name? I know a few. They do that to meet the “minority owned” requirement to get government contracts, and by “government” I don’t mean exclusively federal contracts. Cities, counties, states have these same requirements.
Well, it sounds like you know why a $20 hammer costs the government much more and that it's not the allocation of overhead or supply chain costs, but minority contractors.
No THE cause of expensive hammers is not minority contractors but that requirement is one of thousands that may thwart efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Yesterday while on errands public radio announced that "The Hill" has laid off the staff's of their DEI, climate, and migration departments, supposedly to keep on the king's good side. Then while watching 60 minutes, which had been a routine in my house for a long time, there was an excellent feature on the services that were being cut from the NIH. Research and trials for things like dementia and cancer. Thousands of jobs and billions in research. Then, at the end, Scott Pelley gave an emotional goodbye to their 37 year executive producer, Bill Owens. Owens resigned due to increasing pressure from their parent company, Paramount, to control content. My bit of looking up said much of it goes back to the 10 billion dollar frivolous law suit against 60 minutes over the Harris interview. Catching up local news, Colorado Public Radio's web sight had an appeal to save Public radio from cutbacks.
I don't subscribe, but check on the Washington Post headlines occasionally. Ss far as I can tell, they still seem fairly objective, despite Bezos. I've never seen "X", but gather it's no spot for gathering news, but more like a place for high level people to squabble. It does seem to have a large following, for what reason I'm not sure. I assume Hannity and Tucker Carlson still have popularity in spreading conspiracy theory, even though they now have their way if things. I'm starting to wonder if independent news coverage will come from places like substack. I've not seen any changes in the NYT reporting, but Krugman left under increasing control of content from their management.
Yes, as I was reading your post, I was thinking, "thank God for Substack!" That's where the media refugees are fleeing. Their content (i.e., Krugman, Dan Rather) is just as good, if not better, as it was when it was under the management of their bosses. I like Krugman unleashed and Rather unleashed (Dan Rather's substack is called "Steady").Of course, there are many more less well-known journalists taking advantage of YouTube for news commentary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Other substackers I follow are
Heather Cox Richardson
Meidas Touch Network
Silver Bulletin
As LDAHL pointed out in a previous post, Substack is heavily left, from what I can see. Maybe I just haven't come across the conservative substackers.
Aside from the political substacks, there are many other excellent writers in all fields.
Substack may be heavily left but I don’t recognize that because I subscribe to a few writers in the “trans critical space” (correct speak to make you all happy) so I don’t get those messages.
If news folks are all of a sudden getting pushed and prodded to get more in line with editorial right thinking, I would welcome them to the club that Bari Weiss and Uri Berliner among others founded.
And I guess Rumble is politically Right ? I don’t know, I just catch Russell Brand now and then on You Tube and he posts all of his content on Rumble. Last week I learned DH listens to Rumble, a particular nutjob person whose name I can’t pronounce who make an unlistenable podcast.
Attachment 6311