On 9/26/2021 9:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
>>>>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
>>>>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
>>>>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
>>>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
>>>>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
>>>>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
>>>>>
>>>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
>>>>
>>>> What is enough for you?
>>>
>>> I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
>>> to, say, the level of Europe?
>>> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
>>>
>>>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
>>>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
>>>
>>> No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
>>> tilted against me.
>>>
>>> More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
>>> acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
>>> evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
>>> of other examples.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
>> station in life.
>>
>> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
>> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
>> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
>> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
>> things not made, things not done, things not built.
>
> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
>
> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> contentment.
>
> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Is that satirical or are you being obtuse? I meant steel,
consumer products, electronics and such. As has been noted
for 250 or so years, capital goes where it's treated best.

Regarding which, some people are about to run smack into the
limits of so-called property rights in china:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-troubled-hna-group-says-122607750.html

Not least among them US holders of offshore 'tracking stock'
for chinese firms, since china does not allow foreigners
actual equity positions. This includes large financial,
pension and annuity funds. Ouch.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/27/2021 11:32 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
>>>>>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
>>>>>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
>>>>>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
>>>>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
>>>>>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
>>>>>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is enough for you?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
>>>> to, say, the level of Europe?
>>>> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
>>>>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
>>>>
>>>> No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
>>>> tilted against me.
>>>>
>>>> More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
>>>> acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
>>>> evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
>>>> of other examples.
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
>>> station in life.
>>>
>>> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
>>> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
>>> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
>>> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
>>> things not made, things not done, things not built.
>>
>> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
>>
>> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
>> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
>> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
>> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
>> contentment.
>>
>> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
>
> Will you EVER stop with your bullshit? Mountain roads in Italy, Spain and France are often gravel or broken down asphalt. Where do you get the idea that peaks covered with snow most of the year can be maintained anything like they do here? Why? Because the US has far more tax collections and in most states, actually use the taxes for what it was collected for. California is an exception and not a rule.
>
> No one cares what you think of the rich. It is the rich that PROVIDE the jobs to make the rest of us well off. The money I have in my house and investments CAME FROM COMPANIES OWNED BY RICH PEOPLE. Without those people I might be poor. You lived in your fucking bubble all of your life complaining about your income as a public employee. Too fucking bad - you had the education and training to work at a real job and make real money. Don't complain to me that you made the wrong choice or that you made the right choice but the "rich" prevented you from making the money you would have liked. What I see is that you are nothing more than a sniveling coward who took the easy way out and now want to blame someone else for your lack of guts.

What an angry miserable person you are!

Tom, I've never said a word about mountain roads in Europe. I've never
complained about my income as a public employee (nor, for that matter,
my income as an engineer working for ordinary companies). I've been very
happy with my career choices, my choice of my home and community and my
life in general.

For a refreshing change, try addressing the things I've actually said
here, not the things you wish or pretend I've said.

And take your meds, please. (If you are taking them, see a doctor about
a change in meds.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 9:05:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 11:32 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
> >>>>>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
> >>>>>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
> >>>>>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
> >>>>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
> >>>>>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
> >>>>>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is enough for you?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
> >>>> to, say, the level of Europe?
> >>>> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
> >>>>
> >>>>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
> >>>>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
> >>>> tilted against me.
> >>>>
> >>>> More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
> >>>> acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
> >>>> evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
> >>>> of other examples.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>
> >>> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> >>> station in life.
> >>>
> >>> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> >>> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> >>> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> >>> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> >>> things not made, things not done, things not built.
> >>
> >> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
> >>
> >> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> >> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> >> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> >> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> >> contentment.
> >>
> >> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
> >
> > Will you EVER stop with your bullshit? Mountain roads in Italy, Spain and France are often gravel or broken down asphalt. Where do you get the idea that peaks covered with snow most of the year can be maintained anything like they do here? Why? Because the US has far more tax collections and in most states, actually use the taxes for what it was collected for. California is an exception and not a rule.
> >
> > No one cares what you think of the rich. It is the rich that PROVIDE the jobs to make the rest of us well off. The money I have in my house and investments CAME FROM COMPANIES OWNED BY RICH PEOPLE. Without those people I might be poor. You lived in your fucking bubble all of your life complaining about your income as a public employee. Too fucking bad - you had the education and training to work at a real job and make real money. Don't complain to me that you made the wrong choice or that you made the right choice but the "rich" prevented you from making the money you would have liked. What I see is that you are nothing more than a sniveling coward who took the easy way out and now want to blame someone else for your lack of guts.
> What an angry miserable person you are!
>
> Tom, I've never said a word about mountain roads in Europe. I've never
> complained about my income as a public employee (nor, for that matter,
> my income as an engineer working for ordinary companies). I've been very
> happy with my career choices, my choice of my home and community and my
> life in general.
>
> For a refreshing change, try addressing the things I've actually said
> here, not the things you wish or pretend I've said.
>
> And take your meds, please. (If you are taking them, see a doctor about
> a change in meds.)

Frank, you were telling us that Europe has far better infrastructure and intimated that the rich pay their fair share there. I simply offered an example that ANYONE that has traveled in Europe could see for themselves. For fucks sake - I WAS DRIVING ON ROMAN ROADS. Is that because the rich are paying their fair share there? I STAYED in Roman road houses.

You don't appear to understand that "the rich" as you refer to them, are perfectly able to make a LOT more money but chose to spend their money because after a certain point they are no longer worried about their financial future. You could make of them money grubbers afraid of what the government might do next.

I really don't know what to make of you. YOU could have made money and chose a nice easy job. Now you want to steal money from other so that you could get all of the things you could have had if you wanted them when you were working.

On 9/27/2021 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:55:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
>>>>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
>>>>>> everyone what the actually need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
>>>>>> where they could get rich (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
>>>> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
>>>
>>> Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
>>>
>>> With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
>>>
>>> Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
>>>
>>> With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
>>> "...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
>> You are correct!
>> https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
>>
>> And why is that? (30 second video)
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU
>
> While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
>
> The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.
>

WTF?

Defense was half the budget in 1960. Now it's around 12%

Which means 88% is just pure waste.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 12:04:02 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/26/2021 9:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
> >>>>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
> >>>>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
> >>>>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
> >>>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
> >>>>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
> >>>>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
> >>>>>
> >>>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is enough for you?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
> >>> to, say, the level of Europe?
> >>> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
> >>>
> >>>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
> >>>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
> >>>
> >>> No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
> >>> tilted against me.
> >>>
> >>> More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
> >>> acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
> >>> evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
> >>> of other examples.
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>
> >> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> >> station in life.
> >>
> >> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> >> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> >> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> >> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> >> things not made, things not done, things not built.
> >
> > Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
> >
> > ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> > experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> > ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> > And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> > contentment.
> >
> > We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> Is that satirical or are you being obtuse? I meant steel,
> consumer products, electronics and such. As has been noted
> for 250 or so years, capital goes where it's treated best.

It was partly satirical, but with a point. Steel, consumer products and electronics are NOT in short
supply in countries I've visited with much less income inequality. Hell, just look at Canada. Much
less income inequality than the U.S., and no noticeable downsides to the common man.

ISTM the right wing is always predicting the downfall of civilization if the rich aren't coddled.
I'm tired of it.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:29:20 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:55:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> >>>>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> >>>>>> everyone what the actually need.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> >>>>>> where they could get rich (:-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
> >>>> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
> >>>
> >>> Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
> >>>
> >>> With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
> >>>
> >>> Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
> >>>
> >>> With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
> >>> "...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
> >> You are correct!
> >> https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
> >>
> >> And why is that? (30 second video)
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU
> >
> > While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
> >
> > The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.
> >
> WTF?
>
> Defense was half the budget in 1960. Now it's around 12%
>
> Which means 88% is just pure waste.

Why? Does government have only one purpose -- to wage war? Half the budget is non-discretionary SS/Mediare/Medicaid, which, BTW, are also from dedicated funding sources and not the general fund, but they are still included in the budget. And are you saying that supporting Tom Kunich is waste? How could that be?

And even if our military budget is only 12% of the total budget, its still three times higher than China. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ One wonders why we need to outspend China by 3X. Maybe they buy from Ali-Express.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 11:16:15 AM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 12:04:02 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/26/2021 9:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
> > >>>>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
> > >>>>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
> > >>>>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
> > >>>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
> > >>>>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
> > >>>>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What is enough for you?
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
> > >>> to, say, the level of Europe?
> > >>> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
> > >>>
> > >>>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
> > >>>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
> > >>>
> > >>> No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
> > >>> tilted against me.
> > >>>
> > >>> More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
> > >>> acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
> > >>> evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
> > >>> of other examples.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >>>
> > >> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
> > >> station in life.
> > >>
> > >> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
> > >> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
> > >> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
> > >> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
> > >> things not made, things not done, things not built.
> > >
> > > Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
> > >
> > > ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
> > > experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
> > > ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
> > > And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
> > > contentment.
> > >
> > > We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
> > >
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> > >
> > Is that satirical or are you being obtuse? I meant steel,
> > consumer products, electronics and such. As has been noted
> > for 250 or so years, capital goes where it's treated best.
> It was partly satirical, but with a point. Steel, consumer products and electronics are NOT in short
> supply in countries I've visited with much less income inequality. Hell, just look at Canada. Much
> less income inequality than the U.S., and no noticeable downsides to the common man.
>
> ISTM the right wing is always predicting the downfall of civilization if the rich aren't coddled.
> I'm tired of it.
>

Even the Taliban have iPhones, and some of the soldiers were recently slapped down for taking excessive selfies. https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghanistans-taliban-warns-foot-soldiers-behave-and-stop-taking-selfies-11632582775 This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Stop dropping the expensive bombs and instead drop old iPods with Britney Spears MP3s, Snickers bars, the porn edition of Sports Illustrated, video games. Get them hooked and then drop in the US Airforce Special Marketing Forces. I mean once you drive a bumper car, its like f**** religion . . . I'm going to Disneyland!

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 11:20:17 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:29:20 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/27/2021 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:55:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> > >>>>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> > >>>>>> everyone what the actually need.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> > >>>>>> where they could get rich (:-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> John B.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
> > >>>> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security.. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
> > >>>
> > >>> With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
> > >>>
> > >>> Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
> > >>>
> > >>> With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
> > >>> "...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
> > >> You are correct!
> > >> https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
> > >>
> > >> And why is that? (30 second video)
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU
> > >
> > > While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
> > >
> > > The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.
> > >
> > WTF?
> >
> > Defense was half the budget in 1960. Now it's around 12%
> >
> > Which means 88% is just pure waste.
> Why? Does government have only one purpose -- to wage war? Half the budget is non-discretionary SS/Mediare/Medicaid, which, BTW, are also from dedicated funding sources and not the general fund, but they are still included in the budget. And are you saying that supporting Tom Kunich is waste? How could that be?
>
> And even if our military budget is only 12% of the total budget, its still three times higher than China. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ One wonders why we need to outspend China by 3X. Maybe they buy from Ali-Express.

Jay, watch this all the way through. I don't know how you can face yourself in the mirror. https://www.bitchute.com/video/Opzfa6YCWfp8/

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:00:46 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/26/2021 7:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 07:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> >>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> >>>> everyone what the actually need.
> >>>>
> >>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> >>>> where they could get rich (:-)
> >>>>
> >>>> John B.
> >>>
> >>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
> >> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
> >
> > Nope Tommy, the "social security" plan that Roosevelt initiated is
> > exactly what socialist and communist countries have done, since at
> > about 1917. Step 1 grab the money, or simply don't pay the common
> > folks very much and (2) give some back when they get old.
> >
> > You see, many, perhaps most, of the population never make a single
> > plan for the future and are usually broke by payday so the government
> > steps in and takes care of these feckless fools.
> >
> IIRC Otto von Bismark gets the prize for dreaming up a
> government pension scheme with taxes now and payouts later-
> starting at age 70 for a population mostly dead before 70.
>
> The German regime lowered the payout age to 65 during the
> Great War.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure thing. Otto Fürst von Bismarck, Graf von Bismarck-Schönhausen, Herzog zu Lauenburg (prince of... count of ... multiple other absolute possessions, a Prussian aristocrat's aristocrat) was the world's first successful socialist, and the next one would be Churchill, grandson of one of the areat dukes of England, Marlborough, who in 1944 set up the committee that in fact created the socialist base of modern Britain. Bismarck was acting in fear of another revolution like 1848, Churchill from a sense of responsibility to the broken promises of the first world war -- "a land fit for heroes to return to". I don't find it bizarre at all that modern socialism rests on the examples of such elevated aristocrats. -- AJ

On 9/27/2021 1:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:29:20 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/27/2021 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:55:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
>>>>>>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
>>>>>>>> everyone what the actually need.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
>>>>>>>> where they could get rich (:-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
>>>>>
>>>>> With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
>>>>> "...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
>>>> You are correct!
>>>> https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
>>>>
>>>> And why is that? (30 second video)
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU
>>>
>>> While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
>>>
>>> The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.
>>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> Defense was half the budget in 1960. Now it's around 12%
>>
>> Which means 88% is just pure waste.
>
> Why? Does government have only one purpose -- to wage war? Half the budget is non-discretionary SS/Mediare/Medicaid, which, BTW, are also from dedicated funding sources and not the general fund, but they are still included in the budget. And are you saying that supporting Tom Kunich is waste? How could that be?
>
> And even if our military budget is only 12% of the total budget, its still three times higher than China. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ One wonders why we need to outspend China by 3X. Maybe they buy from Ali-Express.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

'Nondiscretionary' to describe completely discretionary
(not-Constitutionally-mandated ) items, as decided by one
Congress or another, doesn't clarify anything. Words ought
to matter.

When push comes to shove, that is, an existential problem,
no amount of food stamps is going to help. Which is why
national defense deserves some consideration.

Is there waste at The Pentagon? Absolutely, and a lot of it.
Are there useless programs churning away within that budget
wholly unrelated to defense? Many, and for many years.
Ridiculous and profligate, the defense budget looks terrible
except as compared to every other Department because they
are all worse. Much worse.

None of that makes the need less necessary.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:18:42 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:00:46 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 9/26/2021 7:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 07:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > >>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> > >>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> > >>>> everyone what the actually need.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> > >>>> where they could get rich (:-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> John B.
> > >>>
> > >>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
> > >> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
> > >
> > > Nope Tommy, the "social security" plan that Roosevelt initiated is
> > > exactly what socialist and communist countries have done, since at
> > > about 1917. Step 1 grab the money, or simply don't pay the common
> > > folks very much and (2) give some back when they get old.
> > >
> > > You see, many, perhaps most, of the population never make a single
> > > plan for the future and are usually broke by payday so the government
> > > steps in and takes care of these feckless fools.
> > >
> > IIRC Otto von Bismark gets the prize for dreaming up a
> > government pension scheme with taxes now and payouts later-
> > starting at age 70 for a population mostly dead before 70.
> >
> > The German regime lowered the payout age to 65 during the
> > Great War.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> Sure thing. Otto Fürst von Bismarck, Graf von Bismarck-Schönhausen, Herzog zu Lauenburg (prince of... count of ... multiple other absolute possessions, a Prussian aristocrat's aristocrat) was the world's first successful socialist, and the next one would be Churchill, grandson of one of the areat dukes of England, Marlborough, who in 1944 set up the committee that in fact created the socialist base of modern Britain. Bismarck was acting in fear of another revolution like 1848, Churchill from a sense of responsibility to the broken promises of the first world war -- "a land fit for heroes to return to". I don't find it bizarre at all that modern socialism rests on the examples of such elevated aristocrats. -- AJ
Well, I find it strange referring to a social security system as a socialist system. Do people do that for the retirement systems of the large companies like the railroads that failed because they too spent all of those funds attempting to remain in business? Properly done (which agreed, it hasn't accomplished) the government retirement system at least doesn't go broke. Because of the misuse of the social security system Trump suggested changing it over to a semiprivate system which the government couldn't get its hands on. This drove people like Frank through the ceiling since he cannot see money in the hands of someone else that he cannot steal.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:32:40 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Will you EVER stop with your bullshit? Mountain roads in Italy, Spain and France are often gravel or broken down asphalt.

So it is very obvious that you a Trump licking Republican, have never ever actually been to Europe. I have. Three times. I have cycled on the Dolomites in northern Italy, the Alps in Switzerland, and lots of hilly roads in France and Portugal and Spain. And lots of roads in many other western European countries too. All the roads I was on were paved asphalt. No gravel and no broken down asphalt either. Europeans know how to keep excellent roads.

Fun story I like to tell. I rode from Czechoslovakia to Germany. I rode into the former East Germany. Germany was reunited when I was there in 1992.. When I crossed the line between former East and West, it was as obvious as the nose on your face. The road went from old cracked to smooth new. Even the plants changed at the line. Scraggly dying brush on the East side and instantly blossoming green vibrant trees and grass on the West side. Startling change right at that line between free and enslaved.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:23:06 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Biden was NOT elected and election audits are beginning to show that. I have said this a million times - The Democrats used the excuse of a "pandemic" that really didn't exist to send out mass mailings of ballots. Who received those and who sent them back? Were they legal voters? Trump made 3 million more votes than he did with Hillary. Are they trying to tell us that suddenly 5 million more people voted for the invisible and demented Biden? Bullshit.

Oh good Tommy boy. I am very happy to see you are a true Trumpy acolyte. Parroting his and all the other Republican lies about the election being stolen. I was worried and wondering if you weren't licking his rump enough. But you are now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Trump 62,984,828 votes
Hillary 65,853,514 votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
Biden 81,268,924 votes
Trump 74,216,154 votes

Gosh Tommy boy, you can't even keep your lies straight. Where did your nonsensical "Trump made 3 million more votes than he did with Hillary" come from? Another one of your imagined, made up, lies? At least try to keep your lies somewhat consistent. You are a pitiful liar as well as being pitiful in many other things too.

Now I am aware you are mathematically deficient. Having never received an education in your entire life. But Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. Biden got 7 million more votes than Trump in 2020.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:44:44 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
>
> The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.

OH MY GOSH Tommy!!!!!!!! What F---ing reality do you inhabit? It must be a really F---ed up one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
The Vietnam War , also known as the Second Indochina War, was a conflict in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. The war, considered a Cold War-era proxy war by some, lasted almost 20 years, with direct U.S. involvement ending in 1973,

The fall of Saigon in 1975 happened when Gerald Ford was president after Nixon was impeached. Nixon was impeached in October 1973. He resigned in August 1974. Nixon became president in January 1969.

But you, with your infinite wisdom and knowledge, think Nixon stopped the war? Wow!

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 1:29:26 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> the porn edition of Sports Illustrated,
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Is that the swim suit, thong, edition?

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 1:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:29:20 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 9/27/2021 10:44 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:55:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
> >>>>>>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
> >>>>>>>> everyone what the actually need.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
> >>>>>>>> where they could get rich (:-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>>> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security.. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
> >>>>> "...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
> >>>> You are correct!
> >>>> https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
> >>>>
> >>>> And why is that? (30 second video)
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU
> >>>
> >>> While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
> >>>
> >>> The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.
> >>>
> >> WTF?
> >>
> >> Defense was half the budget in 1960. Now it's around 12%
> >>
> >> Which means 88% is just pure waste.
> >
> > Why? Does government have only one purpose -- to wage war? Half the budget is non-discretionary SS/Mediare/Medicaid, which, BTW, are also from dedicated funding sources and not the general fund, but they are still included in the budget. And are you saying that supporting Tom Kunich is waste? How could that be?
> >
> > And even if our military budget is only 12% of the total budget, its still three times higher than China. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ One wonders why we need to outspend China by 3X. Maybe they buy from Ali-Express.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 'Nondiscretionary' to describe completely discretionary
> (not-Constitutionally-mandated ) items, as decided by one
> Congress or another, doesn't clarify anything. Words ought
> to matter.
>
> When push comes to shove, that is, an existential problem,
> no amount of food stamps is going to help. Which is why
> national defense deserves some consideration.
>
> Is there waste at The Pentagon? Absolutely, and a lot of it.
> Are there useless programs churning away within that budget
> wholly unrelated to defense? Many, and for many years.
> Ridiculous and profligate, the defense budget looks terrible
> except as compared to every other Department because they
> are all worse. Much worse.
>
>
> None of that makes the need less necessary.

Words do matter, and I used "non-discretionary," which is correct -- but I should have used "mandatory." That categorization, AFAIK, takes the expense out of the ordinary budget approval process. OMB just estimates it and puts it in, and Congress can't mess with it unless it changes the benefits program. It can't be misspent technically speaking -- except to the extent that the programs are poorly managed and benefits are paid to those who do not qualify. For all the dough I paid in SE taxes, I want the programs to continue so I can be a deadbeat, too.

I do wonder whether Congress could defund HHS/CMS and all the infrastructure necessary to administer the program. I had a Longshore case that was "automatically affirmed" by an appropriations bill that defunded the Benefits Review Board. Congress shut-down the BRB and deemed all of the pending cases "affirmed" to get rid of a huge back-log of cases. https://casetext.com/case/ramey-v-stevedoring-services-of-america?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false A rare separation of powers argument in a Longshore case.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:23:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:15:55 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>>.
>> As I said, y'all elected them... And even more telling y'all run about
>> telling foreign folk that if they'd only accept democracy everything
>> would be wonderful. (:-)
>
>Biden was NOT elected and election audits are beginning to show that. I have said this a million times - The Democrats used the excuse of a "pandemic" that really didn't exist to send out mass mailings of ballots. Who received those and who sent them back? Were they legal voters? Trump made 3 million more votes than he did with Hillary. Are they trying to tell us that suddenly 5 million more people voted for the invisible and demented Biden? Bullshit.

Tommy boy, the Repulsive Republicans have attempted to demonstrate, in
the courts, some 21 separate times, that the election was flawed and
from what I read every suit has been thrown out of court because there
was no proof.

Now, you can tell us that the election was fraudulent, just as you can
tell us that there are no Covid deaths or that there is no climate
change, and the question then becomes: (1) Are you really that stupid?
(2) are you telling lies to "prove" how smart you are? Or (3) are you
simply demonstrating that you really need a better selection of pills
to contain your delusions?

Tell us Tommy, the whole world is awaiting your announcement with
bated breath.
(well, perhaps not the Whole world, but at least one or two
individuals)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:28:49 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:32:40 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Will you EVER stop with your bullshit? Mountain roads in Italy, Spain and France are often gravel or broken down asphalt.
> So it is very obvious that you a Trump licking Republican, have never ever actually been to Europe. I have. Three times. I have cycled on the Dolomites in northern Italy, the Alps in Switzerland, and lots of hilly roads in France and Portugal and Spain. And lots of roads in many other western European countries too. All the roads I was on were paved asphalt. No gravel and no broken down asphalt either. Europeans know how to keep excellent roads..
>
> Fun story I like to tell. I rode from Czechoslovakia to Germany. I rode into the former East Germany. Germany was reunited when I was there in 1992. When I crossed the line between former East and West, it was as obvious as the nose on your face. The road went from old cracked to smooth new. Even the plants changed at the line. Scraggly dying brush on the East side and instantly blossoming green vibrant trees and grass on the West side. Startling change right at that line between free and enslaved.
You are telling everyone here that you prefer communism? Well then North Korea is just for you. So long and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:53:38 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:44:44 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
> >
> > The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.
> OH MY GOSH Tommy!!!!!!!! What F---ing reality do you inhabit? It must be a really F---ed up one.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
> The Vietnam War , also known as the Second Indochina War, was a conflict in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. The war, considered a Cold War-era proxy war by some, lasted almost 20 years, with direct U.S. involvement ending in 1973,
>
> The fall of Saigon in 1975 happened when Gerald Ford was president after Nixon was impeached. Nixon was impeached in October 1973. He resigned in August 1974. Nixon became president in January 1969.
>
> But you, with your infinite wisdom and knowledge, think Nixon stopped the war? Wow!
More ignorance from the left. When you don't know what happened don't act as if you did moron.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 3:17:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Words do matter, and I used "non-discretionary," which is correct -- but I should have used "mandatory." That categorization, AFAIK, takes the expense out of the ordinary budget approval process. OMB just estimates it and puts it in, and Congress can't mess with it unless it changes the benefits program. It can't be misspent technically speaking -- except to the extent that the programs are poorly managed and benefits are paid to those who do not qualify. For all the dough I paid in SE taxes, I want the programs to continue so I can be a deadbeat, too.
>
> I do wonder whether Congress could defund HHS/CMS and all the infrastructure necessary to administer the program. I had a Longshore case that was "automatically affirmed" by an appropriations bill that defunded the Benefits Review Board. Congress shut-down the BRB and deemed all of the pending cases "affirmed" to get rid of a huge back-log of cases. https://casetext.com/case/ramey-v-stevedoring-services-of-america?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false A rare separation of powers argument in a Longshore case.

You forgot "deadbeat candyass" which you have shown yourself to be too often for you not to be aware of it.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 4:05:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:23:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:15:55 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> >>.
> >> As I said, y'all elected them... And even more telling y'all run about
> >> telling foreign folk that if they'd only accept democracy everything
> >> would be wonderful. (:-)
> >
> >Biden was NOT elected and election audits are beginning to show that. I have said this a million times - The Democrats used the excuse of a "pandemic" that really didn't exist to send out mass mailings of ballots. Who received those and who sent them back? Were they legal voters? Trump made 3 million more votes than he did with Hillary. Are they trying to tell us that suddenly 5 million more people voted for the invisible and demented Biden? Bullshit.
> Tommy boy, the Repulsive Republicans have attempted to demonstrate, in
> the courts, some 21 separate times, that the election was flawed and
> from what I read every suit has been thrown out of court because there
> was no proof.
>
> Now, you can tell us that the election was fraudulent, just as you can
> tell us that there are no Covid deaths or that there is no climate
> change, and the question then becomes: (1) Are you really that stupid?
> (2) are you telling lies to "prove" how smart you are? Or (3) are you
> simply demonstrating that you really need a better selection of pills
> to contain your delusions?
>
> Tell us Tommy, the whole world is awaiting your announcement with
> bated breath.
> (well, perhaps not the Whole world, but at least one or two
> individuals)

Too bad you don't have any connection to reality Johnny deadass.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:47:52 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:

> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 10:32:35 PM UTC-7, News 2021 wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 22:02:09 -0500, AMuzi scribed:
>> >>
>> > I just had a discussion of electric cars with a scientist (not
>> > physics) who insisted they were the bees knees and perfectly fine for
>> > long trips.
>> >
>> > He's English. It's just 80 miles across at the skinny part.
>> >
>> > There's no electric capable of a quick visit to my daughter and back
>> > without an 8-hour layover to recharge. A lot of things are different
>> > here!
>> That must be olde tech. Modern tech allows you to drive an infinite
>> distance provided you tase the recommended breaks; 30mins after two
>> hours driving*.
>>
>> It is just a matter of spacing of recharging stations. About a couple
>> of years ago, a tesla owner was explaining how he did regular drives
>> from Sydney to Brisbane (930kms/ 780 miles ~8-9hours) and back. It was
>> about knowing which service stations had recharging points and what
>> their coffee was like.
> You don't own an electric car do you? I don't know what gives you the
> idea that people traveling want to take a 30 minute break every 2 hours
> or think that Tesla batteries don't need replacement at considerable
> expense if you are running them flat and they recharging them to full
> load. Tesla recommends for maximum battery life you never charge over
> 3/4's.

Yawn , taking a break in some form every two hours is recommended by the
Road Safety mobs as away to stay alert and healthy when driving. Fatique
kills.

For this person, the 30 minutes a cup of coffee and back to work contact
time to answer any enquiries from his underlings. As I said, this was
based on old-tech in the recharging stations and new tech is around 10-15
minutes(?).

And as you said, the frequent breaks, as well as being healthy for the
driver and healthy for the battery. He & I said nothing about running
the batteries flat. I believe there is a state of charge indicator, like
the old fuel gauge, in most elective vehicles and as most sensibnle
driver know, when the gauge looks low, you just easy off the speed, which
in all cases, petrol/diesel/gas/electric give you better mileage.
Something to do with all the hot air being blown about. vbg.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:55:13 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/26/2021 9:12 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 9:14:41 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:17:47 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 8:50:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> A bunch of foreigners thought the idea that "From each according to
>> >>>> his ability, to each according to his needs" was a good plan. Give
>> >>>> everyone what the actually need.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And a bunch of people moved to the U.S. (The Land Of Opportunity)
>> >>>> where they could get rich (:-)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> John B.
>> >>>
>> >>> And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt came along in 1932 and started that communist, socialist, Social Security stuff. And WPA. A government giving its poor, old, unemployed citizens work and food and money? CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!
>> >> Another stupid ass that doesn't have a passing clue what he is talking about. There is and never was anything socialist about social security. Like all of you really bright economics majors, you think that a savings account is socialist.
>> >
>> > Wow. You demonstrate your stupidity and lack of financial sense every time you post. Amazing. Let me explain the basics of Social Security and savings accounts.
>> >
>> > With Social Security you contribute a small percent of your pay and your employer matches it. This goes to the federal government and they supposedly save and invest it. Then when you get to be 62 or more, you can receive some money based upon how much you contributed over your lifetime. Kind of like a perpetual annuity. The payments go until you die. So if you live to be 100, you can get 35 years of payments. No limit to the time or total amount taken out of Social Security.
>> >
>> > Now I know you are stupid financially. So let me explain a savings account. You put money in the bank and it gets a small interest amount. Later, when you are old maybe, you withdraw money from the savings account. Based on the amount you take out each month, it will run out eventually. Then, that is it. No more money. Do you understand the difference ignorant Tommy?
>> >
>> > With Social Security you can withdraw far more money than you ever put in. Can't do that with a savings account. You are financially stupid Tommy. As for socialism, it is kind of defined as taking from everyone based upon ability to pay, which Social Security does since it takes a small amount from wages, but not capital gains that the rich earn, and giving to everyone based upon need. Just like Social Security. It even has Social as in socialism in its name.
>> >"...It even has Social as in socialism in its name."
>> You are correct!
>> https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
>>
>> And why is that? (30 second video)
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYR2viQzbU
>
>While I agree with Margaret Thatcherr on that point, it isn't SS that has anything to do with that. As you showed - even with this F-ing Democrat government we are still only paying 3.5% of payroll to SS. MOST of the money spent by the government is the military and their forever wars.
>

Nope Tommy, wrong again. The largest portion of the U.S. budget is
paid in what the government refers to as "mandatory spending". In
looking at the 2022, "Biden" budget we see that "mandatory spending",
made up of benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,
amounts to some $4.018 trillion and "discretionary spending", made up
of everything else, will be $1.688 trillion and Interest on the
Notional debt is $305 billion.

So, of the $5.709 (total less interest payment) some 4.018 trillion,
or ~70.4% goes to what might call "socialist" payments and only 1.688
trillion, or ~29.5% goes for all other.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

Your statement that "MOST of the money spent by the government is the
military and their forever wars" is simply more of the "brown stuff".

>The way you stop this is to re-institute the draft. If some college kid may lose his college and his life to these wars, we would see another flower generation and another Nixon stopping these wars.

Gee, you are really "out of it" aren't you. During the "Vietnam War"
there were about 8,744,000 serving on active military duty. Of which
some 2,709,918 actually served in Vietnam. Of these some 58,148 were
"killed in action". So only some 0.6$% of military forces died in
action during "the war".

But the pitiful part about it is that all this data is freely
available "on the Web". You could look it up, rather then exhibit your
almost total ignorance of everything that you talk about.

Or are you really as stupid as you appear to be?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/27/2021 12:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 9:05:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/27/2021 11:32 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:16:34 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 8:32:35 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/25/2021 9:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 12:33:27 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/25/2021 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I don't buy the "penalize"characteristic about having
>>>>>>>> the wealthy pay more taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Civilization costs money. As I said, if a certain amount of
>>>>>>>> money is required, it makes much more sense to get it from
>>>>>>>> those who have an excess than from those who have little.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I've seen the data showing the wealthy pay more. The
>>>>>>>> question is, do they pay _enough_ more. If they are building
>>>>>>>> immense mansions along roads the county can't afford to
>>>>>>>> properly pave, I'd say they aren't paying enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For USA the top 10% of earners pay half the income tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is enough for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know. More than that. Enough to reduce U.S. financial disparity
>>>>>> to, say, the level of Europe?
>>>>>> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/783001561/why-americas-1-percenters-are-richer-than-europe-s
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Couldn't you say 'Our system is highly tilted against those
>>>>>>> who work and invest' and call it a victory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Andrew. I worked and invested and am doing extremely well. I don't feel the system was
>>>>>> tilted against me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More to the point, today I again drove by that enormous new mansion on a multi-
>>>>>> acre lot surrounded by a hand-built stone wall over four feet high. I didn't see any
>>>>>> evidence of anything tilting against them. And of course I could list dozens or hundreds
>>>>>> of other examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>
>>>>> I did not mean that in any way regarding your personal
>>>>> station in life.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the nation generally, structural impedimenta to
>>>>> investment, creativity and growth hurt everyone. It's a
>>>>> classic structural inefficiency. As more power and money
>>>>> accrues to government, the actual society is poorer in
>>>>> things not made, things not done, things not built.
>>>>
>>>> Diamond necklaces not made, yachts not raced, mansions not built?
>>>>
>>>> ISTM that many countries are counterexamples to your hypothesis. In my
>>>> experience, based on travels in Europe, their infrastructure is generally better than
>>>> ours. Their technology is at least as good. I saw no primitiveness, no lack of civilization.
>>>> And somehow they do this with much less disparity, less serious crime, more general
>>>> contentment.
>>>>
>>>> We give up a lot of that to coddle the rich.
>>>
>>> Will you EVER stop with your bullshit? Mountain roads in Italy, Spain and France are often gravel or broken down asphalt. Where do you get the idea that peaks covered with snow most of the year can be maintained anything like they do here? Why? Because the US has far more tax collections and in most states, actually use the taxes for what it was collected for. California is an exception and not a rule.
>>>
>>> No one cares what you think of the rich. It is the rich that PROVIDE the jobs to make the rest of us well off. The money I have in my house and investments CAME FROM COMPANIES OWNED BY RICH PEOPLE. Without those people I might be poor. You lived in your fucking bubble all of your life complaining about your income as a public employee. Too fucking bad - you had the education and training to work at a real job and make real money. Don't complain to me that you made the wrong choice or that you made the right choice but the "rich" prevented you from making the money you would have liked. What I see is that you are nothing more than a sniveling coward who took the easy way out and now want to blame someone else for your lack of guts.
>> What an angry miserable person you are!
>>
>> Tom, I've never said a word about mountain roads in Europe. I've never
>> complained about my income as a public employee (nor, for that matter,
>> my income as an engineer working for ordinary companies). I've been very
>> happy with my career choices, my choice of my home and community and my
>> life in general.
>>
>> For a refreshing change, try addressing the things I've actually said
>> here, not the things you wish or pretend I've said.
>>
>> And take your meds, please. (If you are taking them, see a doctor about
>> a change in meds.)
>
> Frank, you were telling us that Europe has far better infrastructure and intimated that the rich pay their fair share there. I simply offered an example that ANYONE that has traveled in Europe could see for themselves. For fucks sake - I WAS DRIVING ON ROMAN ROADS. Is that because the rich are paying their fair share there? I STAYED in Roman road houses.

OK, Tom: When did you drive on Roman roads? When did you stay in Roman
houses?

I've ridden bikes and driven cars on European roads during six different
long vacations, the earliest of those being 1992 (not counting Great
Britain in 1976, not then part of the European Union). I traveled and
stayed in about a dozen countries overall. The road infrastructure I saw
seemed better than what I see in the U.S.

I'll also note, I've driven on gravel roads in the U.S. Rocky Mountains.

You seem to hold a simplistic view that everything about the U.S. is
better than everywhere else - which requires some amazing cognitive
dissonance, given your constant complaints about your miserable situation.

Maybe you should move to France? There's some great cycling there.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 7:59:46 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 27.09.2021 um 14:38 schrieb AMuzi:
>> > On 9/27/2021 7:12 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> >> Am 25.09.2021 um 02:03 schrieb AMuzi:
>> >>> On 9/24/2021 6:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>> On 9/24/2021 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It's a concrete example of the rich getting even richer
>> >>>>>> at the expense
>> >>>>>> of the middle and lower classes. But any proposal to
>> >>>>>> raise taxes on the
>> >>>>>> rich gets painted as "punishing hard work" or other
>> >>>>>> nonsense.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Frank, the "rich" always get richer at the expense of the
>> >>>>> lower
>> >>>>> classes, how can it be any different? And lets be honest,
>> >>>>> your "job"
>> >>>>> wasn't to educate some poor, improvised, layabout, it was
>> >>>>> to educate
>> >>>>> those who could afford to pay your price. and, as you have
>> >>>>> told us,
>> >>>>> you are pretty well off these days.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am pretty well off. But I don't believe the rich must
>> >>>> always get richer at the expense of the lower classes - at
>> >>>> least, not to the degree it happens in this country.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> America is a land of extreme income disparity, and even more
>> >>>> extreme wealth disparity. Those disparities are far larger
>> >>>> than in many prosperous European and Asian countries.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't see that situation as being good for the nation, or
>> >>>> for society. We've already seen disastrous effects of
>> >>>> disenfranchized folks voting for a shyster celebrity who
>> >>>> pretended that he would single-handedly fix their problems.
>> >>>> ("Those jobs are all coming back! Don't sell your houses!")
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There are historical examples of similar situations
>> >>>> triggering revolutions, resulting in much bloodshed and
>> >>>> misery but ultimately no real improvement. We don't need
>> >>>> that.
>> >>>
>> >>> This country does not in fact display 'income disparity'
>> >>> whatever that means beyond nornmal human diversity. The
>> >>> institutional and regulatory disincentives to hire/work
>> >>> are more than offset by massive transfer payments which
>> >>> are not included in the breathless reports of 'inequality'.
>> >>
>> >> https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/
>> >>
>> >> For "Share of national income for the top 10%", the USA are
>> >> doing OK-ish: Europe, China and Russia are a bit more
>> >> balanced, the rest of the world is not.
>> >>
>> >> For "Wealth concentration (proportion of noational wealth
>> >> belonging to the top 1%", the US is 30% more concentrated
>> >> than the second-most disbalanced country (Netherlands) and
>> >> double as concentrated as the 6th most concentrated OECS
>> >> country (Latvia).
>> >>
>> >> The average wealth of the US is at the extreme high end but
>> >> the mean wealth of the US is significantly below countries
>> >> like Switzerland, Belgium, France or UK.
>> >
>> > It's all in data selection. Add in transfer payments and see what it
>> > looks like.
>> This *is* after transfer payments; the first picture can possibly be
>> interpreted that US transfer payments are marginally larger Brasilian
>> Transfer payments.
>>
>> Why do you think your minisclue transfer payments make the US less
>> extreme than Europe where the transfer payments are larger by a
>> significant factor?
>
>The interest payments on the National Debt of the US is more than the total income of Europe. Would you like to take that from us?

Really Tommy? I ask as I read that the GDP of Europe is some $15,167
Trillion (nominal; 2020) while interest on the U.S. debt is estimated
to be $305 billion.

Did you mix up "trillions" and "billions" Tommy?
There really is a difference.
--
Cheers,

John B.