Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation in
receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...2008porkpercap

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Sep 14, 3:48*pm, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation in
receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp....

Alaska should lead the nation in Per Capita Earmarks. 2/3 of Alaska
is owned by the other 48 states locked up in 5 very large military
installations and parks of one kind or another.
Why shouldn't the federal government pay to upkeep its facilities?
The total area of the parks alone is something like 18 times the size
of Illionois and 60 times the size of Delaware.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:48 pm, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation in
receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp...

Alaska should lead the nation in Per Capita Earmarks. 2/3 of Alaska
is owned by the other 48 states locked up in 5 very large military
installations and parks of one kind or another.
Why shouldn't the federal government pay to upkeep its facilities?
The total area of the parks alone is something like 18 times the size
of Illionois and 60 times the size of Delaware.


D'oh. The point is not that Alaska got earmarks, the point is that Mr.
Near Death and Ms. Knows Nothing are campaigning partially on her
non-existent record of turning down earmarks. The claim of course is
absolute bull****.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Sep 14, 5:22*pm, hk wrote:
527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:48 pm, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation in
receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp....

Alaska should lead the nation in Per Capita Earmarks. *2/3 of Alaska
is owned by the other 48 states locked up in 5 very large military
installations and parks of one kind or another.
Why shouldn't the federal government pay to upkeep its facilities?
The total area of the parks alone is something like 18 times the size
of Illionois and 60 times the size of Delaware.

D'oh. The point is not that Alaska got earmarks, the point is that Mr.
Near Death and Ms. Knows Nothing are campaigning partially on her
non-existent record of turning down earmarks. The claim of course is
absolute bull****.

You need to be more specific. Do you mean soft earmarks, or hard
earmarks? The whole subject of earmarks makes good political rhetoric
but often lacks specific details.

Ref:
In United States politics, earmarks refer to congressional provisions
that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that
direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks"
or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports
(also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are
binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have
the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.
[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a
specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in
his/her home state or district.

Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously
authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in
appropriations-related documents.

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds
provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the
congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents
Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or
specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability
of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds
allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform
legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and
the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none
of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely
was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy
research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general
legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or
in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or
entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report
language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint
explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is
required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the
United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all
appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides
Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent
on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a
regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal
government.

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in
the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money
to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency
according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With
an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a
specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a
particular project, without the Members of Congress having to identify
themselves or the project.

There is an argument over whether civil servants should appropriate
the money or whether elected officials should do the appropriating.
Critics argue the ability to earmark Federal funds should not be part
of the legislative appropriations process [1]. Tax money should be
applied by Federal agencies according to objective findings of need
and carefully constructed requests rather than being earmarked
arbitrarily by elected officials. Supporters of earmarks, however,
feel that elected officials are better able to prioritize funding
needs in their own districts and states and that it is more democratic
for these officials to make discreet funding decisions than unelected
civil servants. Critics counter that elected representatives have too
much of a vested interest in their own districts and do not have the
Nation's interests as a whole in mind when making these decisions with
taxpayer money.

The congressional year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains
nearly 10,000 Congressional earmarks worth $10.4 billion, according to
a comprehensive database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.[2] In
addition, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, passed
earlier in the year, contains nearly 2,200 earmarks worth $7.9
billion. The total congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008
numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion. This is a 23% cut in earmarks
from the high in FY 2005, but falls well short of the 50% reduction
House leadership set as its goal earlier in the year.[3]

Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08
earmarks representing $13.2 billion as "Pork Projects", significantly
lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years:
13,997 "Pork Projects" for a total of $27.3 billion in 2005, and 9,963
projects for a total of $29 billion in 2006.[4]

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:41:50 -0700, 527_blue_collar_worker wrote:


Lets see you are comparing people that chose to live below sea level
next to a very large body of water where hurricanes often appear to
people that live in Alaska.
No, we Alaskans are not that dumb, or even near that dumb. There is no
comparison.

Really? 40% of Alaska's population live in Anchorage. Anchorage is
built on a quick clay deposit. Anchorage is in an active earthquake
zone. Anyone ever explain soil liquefaction to you?

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Sep 14, 11:34*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:48:45 -0400, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation in
receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp....

Harry you are going to find out Palin cut the earmarks 40% during the
time she was gov. It is stiill a lot of money but 40% less that
Murkowski was getting.

so she and mcbush lied when they said she didn't take earmarks? is
that before or after she...ahem...'visited' iraq....which, of course,
she never did.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Sep 14, 6:11*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:41:50 -0700, 527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
Lets see you are comparing people that chose to live below sea level
next to a very large body of water where hurricanes often appear to
people that live in Alaska.
No, we Alaskans are not that dumb, or even near that dumb. *There is no
comparison.

Really? *40% of Alaska's population live in Anchorage. *Anchorage is
built on a quick clay deposit. *Anchorage is in an active earthquake
zone. *Anyone ever explain soil liquefaction to you? *

Most of the minorities from the lower forty eight states live in
Anchorage on the fault line.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:34:18 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:48:45 -0400, HK wrote:

Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation in
receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...2008porkpercap


Harry you are going to find out Palin cut the earmarks 40% during the
time she was gov. It is stiill a lot of money but 40% less that
Murkowski was getting.

Wasilla was hardly getting anything until Palin became mayor and hired
lobbyists specifically to go get Federal earmarks. Earmarks are
something you have to aggressively chase after. If you don't ask for
them, you don't magically get ANY at all.

Palin = The Earmarks Queen

She's not a hockey mom, so much as a welfare mom.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:48 pm, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter
doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead
the nation
in receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp...

Alaska should lead the nation in Per Capita Earmarks.

So, you admit that McCain and Palin are liars. That's the
first honest thing that you have written in two months,
KKKwifi.

Where is the 'whitey' tape, KKKwifi?

Where is the 'Obama calls Palin a Pig' tape, KKKwifi?

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:22 pm, hk wrote:
527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:48 pm, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the
latter doesn't
take earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans
still lead
the nation in receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp...

Alaska should lead the nation in Per Capita Earmarks.
2/3 of
Alaska is owned by the other 48 states locked up in 5
very large
military installations and parks of one kind or
another.
Why shouldn't the federal government pay to upkeep its
facilities?
The total area of the parks alone is something like 18
times the
size of Illionois and 60 times the size of Delaware.

D'oh. The point is not that Alaska got earmarks, the
point is that
Mr. Near Death and Ms. Knows Nothing are campaigning
partially on
her non-existent record of turning down earmarks. The
claim of
course is absolute bull****.

You need to be more specific. Do you mean soft earmarks,
or hard
earmarks?

ROTFL! KKKwifi is becoming the earmark expert.

Where is the 'whitey' tape, KKKwifi?

Where is the 'Obama calls Palin a Pig' tape, KKKwifi?

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
No, we Alaskans are not that dumb, or even near that dumb.

You are living proof that the above is a lie, KKKwifi.

Where is the 'whitey' tape, KKKwifi?

Where is the 'Obama calls Palin a Pig' tape, KKKwifi?

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:

$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.

You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a paperback, a pack
of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A .Colt 1911 .45
pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a paperback, a pack
of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A .Colt 1911 .45
pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

"Lamont Cranston" wrote in message
...
527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:48 pm, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation
in receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp...

Alaska should lead the nation in Per Capita Earmarks.

So, you admit that McCain and Palin are liars. That's the first honest
thing that you have written in two months, KKKwifi.

Where is the 'whitey' tape, KKKwifi?

Where is the 'Obama calls Palin a Pig' tape, KKKwifi?

When Palin was Mayor she brought in the same amount of earmarks as Boise -
a city of 200,000.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a paperback, a pack
of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A .Colt 1911 .45
pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm says a 1964
dollar had the same buying power as $6.83 in 2008.

http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/ says
it's $7.10.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:


Richard Casady wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:



$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a paperback, a pack
of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A .Colt 1911 .45
pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00


Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady


The CPI is determined by a basket of goods sold for then and the same
basket of goods now, not all things
go up in price the same way or amount . Gas is now $4.00 and cigarettes
are are what? $4.50- $5.00 a pack?
I was also there in 64, I don't know what you were smoking, but a pack
of cigarettes were about 50 cents a pack
in 64.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

Sure it is. As you would have it, not 6.82 or 6.84.

Come back when you have something not prima facie bogus.

Casady

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:25:02 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

Sure it is. As you would have it, not 6.82 or 6.84.

Come back when you have something not prima facie bogus.

You're both wrong. I was paying a dime for a pack of cigs in '64.
And a nickel for a Snickers bar.
Dill pickles could be had for a song, and there was a Coke machine in
the Sears on 79th St. that dispensed an 8-ounce cup for a nickel.
Movies were about 2-bits.
Twinkies were the rage.
Bye Bye American pie.

--Vic

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964.
A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six
figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

Sure it is. As you would have it, not 6.82 or 6.84.

Come back when you have something not prima facie bogus.

Casady

It's not bogus, though it's slightly low. The correct
figure is $7.09561.

ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

Consumer Price Index in August, 1964: 31.0
Consumer Price Index in August, 2008: 219.964

219.964/31.0 = 7.09561

Sucks to be wrong, huh? But, I bet that you're used to it.

Come back when you need another lesson.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:25:02 GMT,
(Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964.
A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six
figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

Sure it is. As you would have it, not 6.82 or 6.84.

Come back when you have something not prima facie bogus.

You're both wrong. I was paying a dime for a pack of cigs
in '64.

No, you weren't.

And a nickel for a Snickers bar.

Nope. That's what it cost in 1930. It was a quarter in
1964.

Dill pickles could be had for a song, and there was a Coke
machine in
the Sears on 79th St. that dispensed an 8-ounce cup for a
nickel.

Doubtful.

Movies were about 2-bits.

Nope, they were about a dollar.

Twinkies were the rage.

That happened in the 1950s.

Bye Bye American pie.

--Vic

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Lamont Cranston wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:25:02 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

Sure it is. As you would have it, not 6.82 or 6.84.

Come back when you have something not prima facie bogus.

You're both wrong. I was paying a dime for a pack of cigs in '64.

No, you weren't.

I was paying 25 cents a pack for them in 1974.


And a nickel for a Snickers bar.

Nope. That's what it cost in 1930. It was a quarter in 1964.

12 cents at 7-11 in 1971.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

BAR wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:25:02 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

Sure it is. As you would have it, not 6.82 or 6.84.

Come back when you have something not prima facie bogus.

You're both wrong. I was paying a dime for a pack of cigs in '64.

No, you weren't.

I was paying 25 cents a pack for them in 1974.

At the PX ?


And a nickel for a Snickers bar.

Nope. That's what it cost in 1930. It was a quarter in 1964.

12 cents at 7-11 in 1971.

Must have been on sale or after Halloween discount ;~)

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Balanced View wrote:
BAR wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:25:02 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:12:16 -0400, Balanced View

wrote:


$1.00 in 1964 had about the same buying power as
$6.83 2008.


You are totally nuts. A gallon of gas, a magazine, a
paperback, a
pack of cigs, a six pack, were all a quarter in 1964. A
.Colt 1911
.45 pistol was $62.50. Levi's were $2.25.

Casady


Go check it your self , they're all over $6.00

Go check what? My point was that the factor of six figure
was bogus.
What am I supposed to check? That gas and cigs were a
quarter in 64?
I was there.

Casady

The $6.83 figure is accurate.

Sure it is. As you would have it, not 6.82 or 6.84.

Come back when you have something not prima facie bogus.

You're both wrong. I was paying a dime for a pack of cigs in '64.

No, you weren't.

I was paying 25 cents a pack for them in 1974.

At the PX ?

Yep.



And a nickel for a Snickers bar.

Nope. That's what it cost in 1930. It was a quarter in 1964.

12 cents at 7-11 in 1971.

Must have been on sale or after Halloween discount ;~)

25 cents got you two candy bars.

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:40:09 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:

And a nickel for a Snickers bar.

Nope. That's what it cost in 1930. It was a quarter in 1964.

12 cents at 7-11 in 1971.

I saved the Time magazine with the obit. Dead of inflation in Hershey
Pa, the five cent Hershey bar. This was in 68.

Casady

Alaska Leads Nation in Per Capita Earmarks
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:40:09 -0400, Balanced View
wrote:


And a nickel for a Snickers bar.

Nope. That's what it cost in 1930. It was a quarter in 1964.

12 cents at 7-11 in 1971.


I saved the Time magazine with the obit. Dead of inflation in Hershey
Pa, the five cent Hershey bar. This was in 68.

Casady



I remember the Hersey bars being five cents, but I never ate them. I was
partial to coffee crisp
bars back then they were only available in Canada. I remember them being
a dime, and a small
coke being seven to ten cents, but that's a long time ago. ;~)