On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:37:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 6:51:21 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:14:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/26/2022 11:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> And yes, I did read about the school shooting in Texas - 22 deaths I
> >> >> believe. But on the same date there were over 300 Covid deaths.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not to, in any manner diminish the horror of school shootings but is
> >> >> it deaths that are being counted or deaths solely by those demon guns?
> >> >
> >> >John, care to write a letter to each child's parents and explain to them
> >> >that what happened wasn't really so bad?
> >> >
> >> >Let us know what you say and how that goes.
> >> You seem to missed the part where I wrote "the horror of school
> >> shootings"...
> >>
> >> But truly, do you believe that the parents would have been less
> >> unhappy had their child been killed by a speeding car who ran a stop
> >> sign?
> >
> >Yes. And likewise, all the kids who knew that child would have had far fewer psychological
> >problems. I just heard a report about the often permanent psychological harm imposed on
> >children involved in events like this, even if they were not directly assaulted or injured.
> >
> >How many mass shootings are there in the country where you live? How many kids are
> >killed by guns annually, on average?
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski
> As I earlier wrote, you seem to be implying that because someone dies
> of a gunshot wound it is somehow more traumatic then, oh say, being
> run down at a cross walk. Or falling out of a tree, for that matter.

My father died in January 2021. He was 86. He had been in ill health for a few years. Getting worse and worse. It was not traumatic for anyone. Everyone was sad he died and wished he had not died. But no trauma. I expect the family and friends of those murdered in Texas at the school and Buffalo at the grocery store are in trauma. How someone dies definitely does affect the amount of trauma. That seems such a simple idea I cannot even believe it is even being argued. John, did Tommy somehow steal your code or nameplate and is writing your replies today?

>
> I remember attending the funeral of the father of a girl that my wife
> grew up with. The poor old fellow had been "ailing" for years, had
> several operations and so on and finally died. The usual ceremonies
> were held, prayers chanted for three days and so on and finally the
> procession to carry the body to the temple for crimination.
>
> As honored guests we "marched" directly behind the family who were led
> by the daughter carrying a large picture of her father. As I could
> clearly see, the tears were running down her cheeks and literally
> dripping off her chin the more or less half kilometer march to the
> temple.
>
> Do you really think she would have been more heart-broken if her
> father had been shot?
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:39:16 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:10:25 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:47:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/26/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 5/26/2022 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But those that live hand to mouth are nearly always simply frittering
>> >>>> a portion of it away. When I was making $70 a month I still managed to
>> >>>> save half my salary. In fact I've saved a portion of my income ever
>> >>>> since I started working.... for my family at 25 cents a week (:-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Your "portions" are undefined, and are probably hypothetical and/or
>> >>> minimal.
>> >>
>> >> Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
>> >> monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
>> >> cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
>> >> two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
>> >> popcorn. What could be finer?
>> >>
>> >> And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
>> >> half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
>> >> refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
>> >> entire salary into savings.
>> >>
>> >> I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
>> >> Fund, as a 20 year old.
>> >>
>> >>> There are certainly countless people who spend beyond their means. I
>> >>> just finished a conversation with one such neighbor. I'm astonished at
>> >>> what she buys, given her finances (which, BTW, are what I'd call middle
>> >>> class).
>> >>>
>> >>> But there are also countless poor people who indulge in only the tiniest
>> >>> luxuries. I have a friend like that. You might begrudge his tiny
>> >>> luxuries. ("You shouldn't have paid so much for that sandwich! Just eat
>> >>> at home!") But to me he should be allowed to live a bit above starvation
>> >>> level.
>> >>>
>> >>> Similarly, a woman I know very well is very intelligent, very well
>> >>> educated, an award winning artist of national repute. During the 1990s
>> >>> she remarked that she was living on less than $10,000 per year. If she
>> >>> chose to, say, buy a theater ticket, I don't think anyone should have
>> >>> complained.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't know what "portion" of those folks meager incomes are or were
>> >>> put aside, just as I don't know the "portion" you bragged about. I'm
>> >>> just using them as examples that low income people are not necessarily
>> >>> wasting lots of money.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
>> >> your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14.6
>> >> trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
>> >> That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
>> >>
>> >> And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
>> >> Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
>> >> interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
>> >> interest on a credit card :-)
>> >>
>> >> But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
>> >> borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
>> >> $1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
>> >> chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
>> >> I can remember living in.
>> >>
>> >> But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
>> >> savings.
>> >
>> >I certainly agree with the overall philosophy. It matches mine, and my
>> >behavior.
>> >
>> >But ISTM saving may be easy for, say, someone in the military who is
>> >provided with housing and food. But those benefits are very uncommon for
>> >normal workers. (We have friend in the State Department whose housing is
>> >paid for when they are overseas, which is most of the time. Partly
>> >because of that, plus things like hazard pay, they are doing very, very
>> >well financially.)
>> Yes, you are at least partially correct. It is easy when you live in
>> the Barracks and eat in the Mess Hall. The technique was on payday as
>> soon as you were paid you went straight down to the Base Exchange
>> (general store sort of place) and you bought 3 cakes of soap, a tube
>> of toothpaste, one canister of shoe polish and 3 cartons of
>> cigarettes.
>>
>> What ever was left you spent that night "down town" and lived happily
>> for the rest of the month (:-)
>>
>> But I got married. Tain't the same (:-)
>> >
>> >Likewise, I'd expect an engineer for an oil company would get a
>> >reasonably high salary, and have difficulty spending it in many low
>> >income countries. Hard to spend = easy to save.
>> Don't kid yourself. It is just as easy to spend money in a low income
>> country as in the U.S. A friend came in one day sporting a gold Rolex
>> watch and I asked him, "where'd you steal the watch?" and he told me
>> he had bought it from a bloke in a bar who'd been out of work for a
>> couple of months.Paid $200.
>> >enough to know what he made. It was not exorbitant. But he lived in a
>> >student dorm while his family lived in Bangladesh and did absolutely
>> >nothing but work. He returned home every semester break. He talked about
>> >his immense house and his wife's servants. Me, I always lived frugally,
>> >but I couldn't afford servants.
>> It used to be that way in Thailand. You moved into a neighborhood and
>> mentioned to the maid next door that you might be looking for help and
>> next morning when you looked out there'd be a whole line of girls
>> squatting on the sidewalk looking for a job.
>>
>> Today, it is different. "Job as a housemaid?" "Naw, I can get a job
>> down the fish packing plant. Only 8 hours a day".
>> Unemployment in Thailand, before Covid was in the 1% neighborhood and
>> there were an estimated 3 million "guest workers" here.
>> >Short version: Circumstances differ widely. I don't believe the poor are
>> >typically poor because they are blowing huge wads of money.
>
>John, I think the point Frank is trying to make is the poor do not have a lot of money. They work for minimum wage. Earn a subsistence salary at best. So they cannot have a "huge wads of money" to blow. Because they do not have "huge wads of money". Their money supply is minimal. That is one of the often talked about points of poverty. You cannot get ahead if everything you earn is used up just to maintain subsistence. To invest, or get ahead, or even to start a new business with an idea you have, requires extra money from somewhere. If you never ever have extra, then you remain poor.
>
Well, I "worked" for $70 a month and saved half of it :-) and yes
there were extenuating circumstances but the point is, if you don't
make much then you go without. Save your money and pretty soon you
have got some.

For example, I read that 95% of the U.S. population owns, or has
access to, an automobile. and the U.S. that is *about* 317,952,110
people. And the U.S. Census has it that 805,722 ride a bicycle to
work. So if you are po folk don't buy a car, but a bicycle.

Do you really Need the 48" TV? In the bedroom?

Get another job. I know quite a number of people, myself included,
that worked more than one job.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:40:21 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:05:19 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:03:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> >Again, compared to most European democracies, the U.S. has more wealth
> >> >and income disparity, more crime, far more murders, incredibly more gun
> >> >deaths, more poverty, far worse health care, worse education, more
> >> >citizen debt, longer work weeks, fewer vacation days, far more
> >> >imprisonment, less general contentment, etc. All democracies are NOT
> >> >equal, and I see little evidence that the U.S. system is best of all.
> >> >
> >> Yes, but Frank, when I pointed out that the U.S. had more crime and
> >> thus likely a more lawless population then Canada you leaped to the
> >> defense of the U.S.
> >
> >I did not. You're acting like Tom, arguing against what you wish I'd said. Instead, try
> >giving an accurate quote and/or link to my actual words.
> >
> Well, I don't keep copies of old posts but I do distinctly remember
> that when I pointed out that Canada had lower rates of Murders, Rapes
> and (I think) Assaults you did in fact leap into the fray with a
> series of excuses as to why they lower then the U.S.
>
> So, o.k. we'll say that you did not make any specific and detailed
> excuses but you certainly did intimate them.

Excuses or explanations? I treat those a bit different. Actually a lot different. Maybe Canada has less murder, rape, assault because:

Lower rate of poverty. 6.4% Canada 13.1% USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Less gun ownership percentage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

Lower Gini Index. Canada 33.3 USA 41.5 So less wealth disparity, difference.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

Canada is more homogenous. Less racial differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians
On the right side of the above link there is a Canadian flag and below it is the racial makeup of Canada. Big difference between the USA.

And there are probably a lot of other reasons I cannot think of off the top of my head.

> >> And as for laying the blame for all of the U.S's ills on income
> >> disparity,...
> >
> >Again, that's not what I've said, especially the "all". However, I do believe income and wealth disparity
> >are major sources of problems.
> And again, I agree that you didn't enumerate, in great detail, all the
> exact causes and effects but you certainly did mention income
> disparity over and over and over.
> >
> >> The murder rate in the U.S. is 6.2/100,000, Thailand 2.6.
> >
> >I don't dispute that at all. Of course, you have no NRA, do you?
> What has the National Rifle Association have to do with it?
> Does the NRA endorse illegal use of firearms?

Murder is frequently, often, committed by guns. 79% of murders by gun in USA in 2020.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Many people believe having more guns available leads to more murders being performed. NRA promotes more guns for everyone. Seems like a logical progression between murder rate and NRA.

>
> But more inline with reality, the NRA brags of something like 5.5
> million members and, as I pointed out in another post, estimates are
> that some 30% own guns in the U.S.
> (Pew Research)
>
> That is what? Maybe 1/3 of 334,686,437? A whole bunch more then the
> NRA, anyway.
> >> The question then is "Are we doing something right" or "are you doing
> >> something wrong"?
> >
> >Think, John! Those conditions are not mutually exclusive!
> >
> >> Or right here. Is Tommy the sort that you feel capable of making
> >> decisions for you? He apparently is typical of a growing portion of
> >> the Public. Witness the furor over "illegal votes" or the Washington
> >> riot.
> >
> >If I were allowed to write the qualifications for voting, Tom would not qualify.
> >I'd demand a certain level of intelligence, and a certain connection to reality.
> >But admittedly, such standards are very unlikely to be imposed.
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski
> Yes, exactly as the guys that started the whole idea did. Owns
> property, pays taxes, and has completed military training and
> maintains arms. i.e., prepared to defend the city.
> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> In fact I believe I read somewhere that Winston Churchill once said
> something about it being foolishness to allow those on the dole to
> vote as they would only vote for more dole.
>
> The New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to
> "all inhabitants" who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50
> English pounds, and resided in a county for at least one year.
> Presumably "all inhabitants" were male.

Things change. We even allowed women to vote 102 years ago. 1920. And in your reply John, you forgot a very important part. Presumably "all inhabitants" were WHITE male. Although come to think of it, I do not know how the states handled non slave blacks in the northern states. In some states probably, not all blacks were slaves. Some were free. Could they vote? I presume in the southern states there were no free blacks allowed. All blacks in those states were slaves. But in states that allowed blacks to be free, was that enough to allow them to vote? Or did it take the 15th Amendment in 1870 to allow any black men to vote?

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 12:11:19 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:39:16 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:10:25 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:47:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/26/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 5/26/2022 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But those that live hand to mouth are nearly always simply frittering
> >> >>>> a portion of it away. When I was making $70 a month I still managed to
> >> >>>> save half my salary. In fact I've saved a portion of my income ever
> >> >>>> since I started working.... for my family at 25 cents a week (:-)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Your "portions" are undefined, and are probably hypothetical and/or
> >> >>> minimal.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
> >> >> monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
> >> >> cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
> >> >> two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
> >> >> popcorn. What could be finer?
> >> >>
> >> >> And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
> >> >> half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
> >> >> refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
> >> >> entire salary into savings.
> >> >>
> >> >> I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
> >> >> Fund, as a 20 year old.
> >> >>
> >> >>> There are certainly countless people who spend beyond their means. I
> >> >>> just finished a conversation with one such neighbor. I'm astonished at
> >> >>> what she buys, given her finances (which, BTW, are what I'd call middle
> >> >>> class).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But there are also countless poor people who indulge in only the tiniest
> >> >>> luxuries. I have a friend like that. You might begrudge his tiny
> >> >>> luxuries. ("You shouldn't have paid so much for that sandwich! Just eat
> >> >>> at home!") But to me he should be allowed to live a bit above starvation
> >> >>> level.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Similarly, a woman I know very well is very intelligent, very well
> >> >>> educated, an award winning artist of national repute. During the 1990s
> >> >>> she remarked that she was living on less than $10,000 per year. If she
> >> >>> chose to, say, buy a theater ticket, I don't think anyone should have
> >> >>> complained.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't know what "portion" of those folks meager incomes are or were
> >> >>> put aside, just as I don't know the "portion" you bragged about. I'm
> >> >>> just using them as examples that low income people are not necessarily
> >> >>> wasting lots of money.
> >> >>
> >> >> It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
> >> >> your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14..6
> >> >> trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
> >> >> That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
> >> >>
> >> >> And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
> >> >> Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
> >> >> interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
> >> >> interest on a credit card :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
> >> >> borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
> >> >> $1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
> >> >> chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
> >> >> I can remember living in.
> >> >>
> >> >> But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
> >> >> savings.
> >> >
> >> >I certainly agree with the overall philosophy. It matches mine, and my
> >> >behavior.
> >> >
> >> >But ISTM saving may be easy for, say, someone in the military who is
> >> >provided with housing and food. But those benefits are very uncommon for
> >> >normal workers. (We have friend in the State Department whose housing is
> >> >paid for when they are overseas, which is most of the time. Partly
> >> >because of that, plus things like hazard pay, they are doing very, very
> >> >well financially.)
> >> Yes, you are at least partially correct. It is easy when you live in
> >> the Barracks and eat in the Mess Hall. The technique was on payday as
> >> soon as you were paid you went straight down to the Base Exchange
> >> (general store sort of place) and you bought 3 cakes of soap, a tube
> >> of toothpaste, one canister of shoe polish and 3 cartons of
> >> cigarettes.
> >>
> >> What ever was left you spent that night "down town" and lived happily
> >> for the rest of the month (:-)
> >>
> >> But I got married. Tain't the same (:-)
> >> >
> >> >Likewise, I'd expect an engineer for an oil company would get a
> >> >reasonably high salary, and have difficulty spending it in many low
> >> >income countries. Hard to spend = easy to save.
> >> Don't kid yourself. It is just as easy to spend money in a low income
> >> country as in the U.S. A friend came in one day sporting a gold Rolex
> >> watch and I asked him, "where'd you steal the watch?" and he told me
> >> he had bought it from a bloke in a bar who'd been out of work for a
> >> couple of months.Paid $200.
> >> >enough to know what he made. It was not exorbitant. But he lived in a
> >> >student dorm while his family lived in Bangladesh and did absolutely
> >> >nothing but work. He returned home every semester break. He talked about
> >> >his immense house and his wife's servants. Me, I always lived frugally,
> >> >but I couldn't afford servants.
> >> It used to be that way in Thailand. You moved into a neighborhood and
> >> mentioned to the maid next door that you might be looking for help and
> >> next morning when you looked out there'd be a whole line of girls
> >> squatting on the sidewalk looking for a job.
> >>
> >> Today, it is different. "Job as a housemaid?" "Naw, I can get a job
> >> down the fish packing plant. Only 8 hours a day".
> >> Unemployment in Thailand, before Covid was in the 1% neighborhood and
> >> there were an estimated 3 million "guest workers" here.
> >> >Short version: Circumstances differ widely. I don't believe the poor are
> >> >typically poor because they are blowing huge wads of money.
> >
> >John, I think the point Frank is trying to make is the poor do not have a lot of money. They work for minimum wage. Earn a subsistence salary at best. So they cannot have a "huge wads of money" to blow. Because they do not have "huge wads of money". Their money supply is minimal. That is one of the often talked about points of poverty. You cannot get ahead if everything you earn is used up just to maintain subsistence. To invest, or get ahead, or even to start a new business with an idea you have, requires extra money from somewhere. If you never ever have extra, then you remain poor.
> >
> Well, I "worked" for $70 a month and saved half of it :-) and yes
> there were extenuating circumstances but the point is, if you don't
> make much then you go without. Save your money and pretty soon you
> have got some.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 21:48:40 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:03:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/27/2022 12:21 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:52:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 5/26/2022 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
>> >>>> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
>> >>>> live!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Are you now saying that it isn't?
>> >>>
>> >>> Don't be simplistic, John. All democracies are not equal. The one I live
>> >>> in has great room for improvement. Look at the data!
>> >>
>> >> But I'm not being simplistic. It is a democracy and y'all do run
>> >> around telling people how wonderful "democracy".
>> >>
>> >> But how improvement?
>> >
>> >How improvement indeed! Um... whatever that means...
>> >
>> >You declined my invitation to look at data for various democracies.
>> >Again, compared to most European democracies, the U.S. has more wealth
>> >and income disparity, more crime, far more murders, incredibly more gun
>> >deaths, more poverty, far worse health care, worse education, more
>> >citizen debt, longer work weeks, fewer vacation days, far more
>> >imprisonment, less general contentment, etc. All democracies are NOT
>> >equal, and I see little evidence that the U.S. system is best of all.
>> >
>> Yes, but Frank, when I pointed out that the U.S. had more crime and
>> thus likely a more lawless population then Canada you leaped to the
>> defense of the U.S.
>>
>> And as for laying the blame for all of the U.S's ills on income
>> disparity, I think you have your head in the clouds as I've lived in
>> countries where the disparity between the "haves" and the "have not's"
>> is far greater then the U.S. and we don't have the awful crimes that
>> you flaunt.
>>
>> Thailand, a poor, improvised country has, currently, with the Covid,
>> some 1.53% unemployment. Before Covid as low as 0.98%. And the U.S.,
>> the richest country in the world, has (I read) 3.6%.
>>
>> The murder rate in the U.S. is 6.2/100,000, Thailand 2.6.
>>
>
>On the Gini Index, Thailand has a 35.0 score. USA has 41.5. So the income equity is much better in Thailand than the USA. So your better numbers for Thailand over the USA prove that less income disparity results in better life.
>https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

Yes, I looked at that and then I looked at GINI and yes the numbers
seem to show some sort of difference, But is it real?

Not to quibble but I really can't believe that it is indicative of
what I see here every day. Perhaps if you do the calculation for
Bangkok or even Bangkok, Korat and Changmai (the three larger cities),
but I really can't believe it applies to the entire country, as a
whole. I can take you to village after village in the N.E. or South
where income is far, far lower then it is in the cities.

But, is relative income, or income disparity, if you would, really an
indication of much of anything? After all, if I have an income of, say
1 million a year and you have an income of 100,000 there is a
disparage of 100::1. Oh, WoW. Terrible! Terrible! Or is it.

>
>> The U.S. has something like 7 million undocumented illegal immigrants
>> working in the country. And some 5.9 million unemployed citizens.
>> https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-millions-undocumented-immigrants-essential-americas-recovery-new-report-shows/
>> https://tinyurl.com/3z3e4xdd
>>
>> The question then is "Are we doing something right" or "are you doing
>> something wrong"?
>> >However, that doesn't mean the general concept of democracy is bad. I'll
>> >let you dig out this data, but I suspect that those metrics are worse
>> >for the average dictatorship than for the average democracy. That would
>> >mean that promoting democracy as an alternative to dictatorships does
>> >make sense.
>> I really wonder. How much does the average citizen know about world
>> events, the effects of minimum salary on world trade and the national
>> economy. And, and, and.
>>
>> Or right here. Is Tommy the sort that you feel capable of making
>> decisions for you? He apparently is typical of a growing portion of
>> the Public. Witness the furor over "illegal votes" or the Washington
>> riot.
>>
>> But, to be honest, I do wonder whether any political system is "best".
>> I've noted that the greatest progress in the world, from a bombed out
>> rubble to a modern country, the richest in the region, occurred in
>> Singapore under a government that was, in fact, if not facade, a
>> dictatorship.
>
>Depends on how you define "best". Economically, the Singapore as you say, and China too, would be successes. China was ravaged after WW2. By the Japanese. And went through an internal dispute. And had lots of mouths to feed. And now, its sort of OK economically. Is economic success "best"?

Well, it is certainly part of it.

Singapore, which as I've mentioned has, and enforces, very stringent
laws was quite literally a bombed out rubble in 1945. There was the
usual communist versus good guys squabbles and the outcome was that
the "good guys' won the battle, imprisoned the communists, and went
about rebuilding the city. When I first went there in 1960-something
the majority of the people lived in "Kampongs - a Malay word that can
be translated as "village" mostly without decent water or reliable
electricity.

Along with enticing labor intensive businesses to "come and open a
business here" the government built one room "apartment" buildings and
in a few years the people were housed in clean, multistory buildings
with clean water and electricity.

At the same time they were running around offering any labor intensive
company - Come to Singapore (no, or very low taxes) and in are very
short time they had, not only 100% employment they had a million or so
Malays coming across every day to work.

As soon as they had 100% employment they started emphasizing education
-Send Your Kid To School! And, of course, searching out companies that
were less labor intensive and much more technical'

Today, the single room"apartments" are a thing of the past and
everyone is housed in multi room apartments, with all mod cons. In
fact car ownership - it is an island - is one of there larger
problems.

I'd guess that they have the highest living standards in South East
Asia.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:01:35 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 21:18:55 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:52:06 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> rOn Thu, 26 May 2022 23:05:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 5/26/2022 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I firmly believe that the income disparity that Frank rants about is
>> >> >> simply human nature. In extremely primitive cultures - people running
>> >> >> around naked with a spear - there are "Big Men" who are leaders, have
>> >> >> more pigs (symbol of wealth) and more wives to take care of the pigs,
>> >> >> then everyone else.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In every country I've lived in there have been rich men and poor men
>> >> >> and in nearly all cases, noticeably in developing countries, it is due
>> >> >> to the individual's own efforts.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problems I'm noting are certainly connected to human nature, as are
>> >> >probably most of the problems we deal with as humans.
>> >> >
>> >> >Governments exist in part to control the bad effects of human nature.
>> >> >Examples: Rape is illegal. Theft is illegal. Murder is illegal.
>> >> >
>> >> >But there are wide varieties of governments and government regulations.
>> >> >Many governments tax the wealthy and super-wealthy in ways that allow
>> >> >greater government revenue. Using that revenue, they provide much higher
>> >> >levels of services to citizens compared to the U.S.
>> >> >
>> >> >As a side effect of those policies, their wealth and income disparities
>> >> >are much lower than the U.S. That in itself provides social benefits.
>> >> >Lower disparities lead to less envy, discontent and crime.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm not hearing any good arguments in favor of U.S. policies. As with
>> >> >gun policies and medical care systems, our results are lousy, but the
>> >> >right wing wants to ignore results while nonsensically yelling "freedom!!"
>> >> Gun problem?
>> >>
>> >> Well, Pew research has it that 30% of the U.S. population owns a gun.
>> >> that is 100,404,343 people in the U.S. own firearms.
>> >> https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
>> >> Another source states that 44% of the U.S. public live in a household
>> >> where guns are available.
>> >> https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
>> >> So, there are actually some 147, 259, 967 people in the U.S. who can
>> >> access a firearm.
>> >>
>> >> The most up to date figures I have is 2019 but there were some 10,258
>> >> murders committed with firearms according to the FBI statistics.
>> >> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls
>> >> So, if we assume that one person murdered only one person - I have no
>> >> better statistics - then 0.0069% of gun owners murdered someone.
>> >> Really, really, horrifying statistics.
>> >>
>> >> And yes, I did read about the school shooting in Texas - 22 deaths I
>> >> believe. But on the same date there were over 300 Covid deaths.
>> >>
>> >> Not to, in any manner diminish the horror of school shootings but is
>> >> it deaths that are being counted or deaths solely by those demon guns?
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >?????????
>> >How someone dies matters. Not just the death itself. As you stated, Covid killed more than school, or mass, or regular murders. Or suicides. All by guns. Most by guns I guess. And heart attacks killed 696,962. Cancer killed 602.350. More than guns and Covid combined. Covid killed 350,831. All 2020 numbers.
>> >
>> >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
>> >
>> >Covid deaths fell into the blameless category in 2020. But after the vaccines became available in early 2021, then the Covid deaths changed to preventable and self choice. Sort of. Personally, I put school children into the blameless category. Of course I have seen many Republicans saying the school district or the parents or the children themselves caused it. Typical. Suicides are by definition self induced. So the gun made it easier to accomplish the goal, but no one puts too much worry on these deaths.
>> >
>> >How someone dies affects the death. The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded posthumously to a few soldiers. I presume how they died mattered in getting the CMH. Not all dead soldiers got the CMH.
>> The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded for something that the
>> individual did. The fact that he died, or did not die, doing it has
>> nothing to do with it. Since 1863 there have been 3,525 that received
>> the decoration of which 618 were awarded post humorously.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Huh? If the soldier died doing something heroic to win the battle or save his comrades, then how he died is very relevant to receiving the CMH. I've heard stories of CMH soldiers throwing themselves on grenades and absorbing the shrapnel to save the others in the foxhole. Never looked it up to see if this is a true story or not. But how they died is very relevant. Or the stories of one soldier remaining at his post at the front and defending against the oncoming battalion of enemy soldiers and killing 200 of them before dying. And awarded the CMH posthumously. How they died is relevant.
>
>I presume you meant "posthumously", not "post humorously" as you wrote. I doubt there was much humor after the death, post,

Thanks for the correction but the CMH is "Awarded for Conspicuous
gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the
call of duty."
And
Total recipients - 3,525
Total awarded posthumously - 618
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 22:32:16 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:40:21 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:05:19 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:03:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Again, compared to most European democracies, the U.S. has more wealth
>> >> >and income disparity, more crime, far more murders, incredibly more gun
>> >> >deaths, more poverty, far worse health care, worse education, more
>> >> >citizen debt, longer work weeks, fewer vacation days, far more
>> >> >imprisonment, less general contentment, etc. All democracies are NOT
>> >> >equal, and I see little evidence that the U.S. system is best of all.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, but Frank, when I pointed out that the U.S. had more crime and
>> >> thus likely a more lawless population then Canada you leaped to the
>> >> defense of the U.S.
>> >
>> >I did not. You're acting like Tom, arguing against what you wish I'd said. Instead, try
>> >giving an accurate quote and/or link to my actual words.
>> >
>> Well, I don't keep copies of old posts but I do distinctly remember
>> that when I pointed out that Canada had lower rates of Murders, Rapes
>> and (I think) Assaults you did in fact leap into the fray with a
>> series of excuses as to why they lower then the U.S.
>>
>> So, o.k. we'll say that you did not make any specific and detailed
>> excuses but you certainly did intimate them.
>
>Excuses or explanations? I treat those a bit different. Actually a lot different. Maybe Canada has less murder, rape, assault because:
>
>Lower rate of poverty. 6.4% Canada 13.1% USA
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
>
>Less gun ownership percentage.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
>
>Lower Gini Index. Canada 33.3 USA 41.5 So less wealth disparity, difference.
>https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
>
>Canada is more homogenous. Less racial differences.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians
>On the right side of the above link there is a Canadian flag and below it is the racial makeup of Canada. Big difference between the USA.
>
>And there are probably a lot of other reasons I cannot think of off the top of my head.
>
>
>
>
>
>> >> And as for laying the blame for all of the U.S's ills on income
>> >> disparity,...
>> >
>> >Again, that's not what I've said, especially the "all". However, I do believe income and wealth disparity
>> >are major sources of problems.
>> And again, I agree that you didn't enumerate, in great detail, all the
>> exact causes and effects but you certainly did mention income
>> disparity over and over and over.
>> >
>> >> The murder rate in the U.S. is 6.2/100,000, Thailand 2.6.
>> >
>> >I don't dispute that at all. Of course, you have no NRA, do you?
>> What has the National Rifle Association have to do with it?
>> Does the NRA endorse illegal use of firearms?
>
>Murder is frequently, often, committed by guns. 79% of murders by gun in USA in 2020.
>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
>Many people believe having more guns available leads to more murders being performed. NRA promotes more guns for everyone. Seems like a logical progression between murder rate and NRA.

Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

>>
>> But more inline with reality, the NRA brags of something like 5.5
>> million members and, as I pointed out in another post, estimates are
>> that some 30% own guns in the U.S.
>> (Pew Research)
>>
>> That is what? Maybe 1/3 of 334,686,437? A whole bunch more then the
>> NRA, anyway.
>> >> The question then is "Are we doing something right" or "are you doing
>> >> something wrong"?
>> >
>> >Think, John! Those conditions are not mutually exclusive!
>> >
>> >> Or right here. Is Tommy the sort that you feel capable of making
>> >> decisions for you? He apparently is typical of a growing portion of
>> >> the Public. Witness the furor over "illegal votes" or the Washington
>> >> riot.
>> >
>> >If I were allowed to write the qualifications for voting, Tom would not qualify.
>> >I'd demand a certain level of intelligence, and a certain connection to reality.
>> >But admittedly, such standards are very unlikely to be imposed.
>> >
>> >- Frank Krygowski
>> Yes, exactly as the guys that started the whole idea did. Owns
>> property, pays taxes, and has completed military training and
>> maintains arms. i.e., prepared to defend the city.
>> Nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> In fact I believe I read somewhere that Winston Churchill once said
>> something about it being foolishness to allow those on the dole to
>> vote as they would only vote for more dole.
>>
>> The New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to
>> "all inhabitants" who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50
>> English pounds, and resided in a county for at least one year.
>> Presumably "all inhabitants" were male.
>
>Things change. We even allowed women to vote 102 years ago. 1920. rAnd in your reply John, you forgot a very important part. Presumably "all inhabitants" were WHITE male. Although come to think of it, I do not know how the states handled non slave blacks in the northern states. In some states probably, not all blacks were slaves. Some were free. Could they vote? I presume in the southern states there were no free blacks allowed. All blacks in those states were slaves. But in states that allowed blacks to be free, was that enough to allow them to vote? Or did it take the 15th Amendment in 1870 to allow any black men to vote?

I don't know, but there didn't seem to have been many in the North in
the colonial days. But the Wikki says that "When the United States
Constitution was ratified (1789), a small number of free blacks were
among the voting citizens (male property owners) in some states."
And that nation wide, as you say, in 1870,

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 23:44:47 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 12:11:19 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:39:16 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:10:25 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:47:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 5/26/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On 5/26/2022 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> But those that live hand to mouth are nearly always simply frittering
>> >> >>>> a portion of it away. When I was making $70 a month I still managed to
>> >> >>>> save half my salary. In fact I've saved a portion of my income ever
>> >> >>>> since I started working.... for my family at 25 cents a week (:-)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Your "portions" are undefined, and are probably hypothetical and/or
>> >> >>> minimal.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
>> >> >> monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
>> >> >> cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
>> >> >> two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
>> >> >> popcorn. What could be finer?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
>> >> >> half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
>> >> >> refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
>> >> >> entire salary into savings.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
>> >> >> Fund, as a 20 year old.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> There are certainly countless people who spend beyond their means. I
>> >> >>> just finished a conversation with one such neighbor. I'm astonished at
>> >> >>> what she buys, given her finances (which, BTW, are what I'd call middle
>> >> >>> class).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But there are also countless poor people who indulge in only the tiniest
>> >> >>> luxuries. I have a friend like that. You might begrudge his tiny
>> >> >>> luxuries. ("You shouldn't have paid so much for that sandwich! Just eat
>> >> >>> at home!") But to me he should be allowed to live a bit above starvation
>> >> >>> level.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Similarly, a woman I know very well is very intelligent, very well
>> >> >>> educated, an award winning artist of national repute. During the 1990s
>> >> >>> she remarked that she was living on less than $10,000 per year. If she
>> >> >>> chose to, say, buy a theater ticket, I don't think anyone should have
>> >> >>> complained.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I don't know what "portion" of those folks meager incomes are or were
>> >> >>> put aside, just as I don't know the "portion" you bragged about. I'm
>> >> >>> just using them as examples that low income people are not necessarily
>> >> >>> wasting lots of money.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
>> >> >> your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14.6
>> >> >> trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
>> >> >> That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
>> >> >> Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
>> >> >> interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
>> >> >> interest on a credit card :-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
>> >> >> borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
>> >> >> $1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
>> >> >> chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
>> >> >> I can remember living in.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
>> >> >> savings.
>> >> >
>> >> >I certainly agree with the overall philosophy. It matches mine, and my
>> >> >behavior.
>> >> >
>> >> >But ISTM saving may be easy for, say, someone in the military who is
>> >> >provided with housing and food. But those benefits are very uncommon for
>> >> >normal workers. (We have friend in the State Department whose housing is
>> >> >paid for when they are overseas, which is most of the time. Partly
>> >> >because of that, plus things like hazard pay, they are doing very, very
>> >> >well financially.)
>> >> Yes, you are at least partially correct. It is easy when you live in
>> >> the Barracks and eat in the Mess Hall. The technique was on payday as
>> >> soon as you were paid you went straight down to the Base Exchange
>> >> (general store sort of place) and you bought 3 cakes of soap, a tube
>> >> of toothpaste, one canister of shoe polish and 3 cartons of
>> >> cigarettes.
>> >>
>> >> What ever was left you spent that night "down town" and lived happily
>> >> for the rest of the month (:-)
>> >>
>> >> But I got married. Tain't the same (:-)
>> >> >
>> >> >Likewise, I'd expect an engineer for an oil company would get a
>> >> >reasonably high salary, and have difficulty spending it in many low
>> >> >income countries. Hard to spend = easy to save.
>> >> Don't kid yourself. It is just as easy to spend money in a low income
>> >> country as in the U.S. A friend came in one day sporting a gold Rolex
>> >> watch and I asked him, "where'd you steal the watch?" and he told me
>> >> he had bought it from a bloke in a bar who'd been out of work for a
>> >> couple of months.Paid $200.
>> >> >enough to know what he made. It was not exorbitant. But he lived in a
>> >> >student dorm while his family lived in Bangladesh and did absolutely
>> >> >nothing but work. He returned home every semester break. He talked about
>> >> >his immense house and his wife's servants. Me, I always lived frugally,
>> >> >but I couldn't afford servants.
>> >> It used to be that way in Thailand. You moved into a neighborhood and
>> >> mentioned to the maid next door that you might be looking for help and
>> >> next morning when you looked out there'd be a whole line of girls
>> >> squatting on the sidewalk looking for a job.
>> >>
>> >> Today, it is different. "Job as a housemaid?" "Naw, I can get a job
>> >> down the fish packing plant. Only 8 hours a day".
>> >> Unemployment in Thailand, before Covid was in the 1% neighborhood and
>> >> there were an estimated 3 million "guest workers" here.
>> >> >Short version: Circumstances differ widely. I don't believe the poor are
>> >> >typically poor because they are blowing huge wads of money.
>> >
>> >John, I think the point Frank is trying to make is the poor do not have a lot of money. They work for minimum wage. Earn a subsistence salary at best. So they cannot have a "huge wads of money" to blow. Because they do not have "huge wads of money". Their money supply is minimal. That is one of the often talked about points of poverty. You cannot get ahead if everything you earn is used up just to maintain subsistence. To invest, or get ahead, or even to start a new business with an idea you have, requires extra money from somewhere. If you never ever have extra, then you remain poor.
>> >
>> Well, I "worked" for $70 a month and saved half of it :-) and yes
>> there were extenuating circumstances but the point is, if you don't
>> make much then you go without. Save your money and pretty soon you
>> have got some.
>
>How do you "go without" if it takes every penny you make to afford the barest of minimum food to continue life? Kind of like you "go without" oxygen if the mob throws you into the lake with a concrete block tied around your leg. How do you "save your money" if you end up with zero pennies left after providing the barest necessities to stay alive? There are zero pennies left to save.
>
>Now I know for the vast majority what I just wrote is hopefully not the reality. But for a few, hopefully minimal few, it is the reality. And for the others who do not have it as extreme as I just wrote, they may manage to save a few bucks. A few. Not a lot. Just a few. So at the end of the year they have a surplus of $100. $100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Big savings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Almost unlimited potential with that vast fortune!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Google says median income for a man in 1940 was $956. Family median income of $3000 in 1947. Average family income was $3300 in 1950. Median family income in 1960 was $5600. 1970 was $9870.
>
>So you got $70 per month income, $840 per year. And all your clothing, food, housing, medical was supplied by the US government. This was 1950 in the Air Force? No family then I assume. Still a swinging single pilot. You were not getting rich as an enlisted man. Your income was one fourth of a average man/family in the US. But your one fourth income was 100% savings since you had zero required costs. To compare, the average US man would have to save one fourth, 25%, of his income. The other 75% spent on house and car and wife and kids. Did everyone save one fourth of their income in the 1950s? They don't today.

On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>
>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
>> law closer then most poor folk.
>
> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying the ultra-rich
> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty. And they are
> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have the laws re-written
> in their favor.
>
> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over and over until
> you understand.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965

I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
on her husband's portfolio.

(all revenue bills must originate in the House and nothing
happens there unless MS Pelosi says so.)

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

On 5/27/2022 10:39 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:10:25 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:47:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/26/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/26/2022 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But those that live hand to mouth are nearly always simply frittering
>>>>>> a portion of it away. When I was making $70 a month I still managed to
>>>>>> save half my salary. In fact I've saved a portion of my income ever
>>>>>> since I started working.... for my family at 25 cents a week (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "portions" are undefined, and are probably hypothetical and/or
>>>>> minimal.
>>>>
>>>> Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
>>>> monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
>>>> cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
>>>> two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
>>>> popcorn. What could be finer?
>>>>
>>>> And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
>>>> half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
>>>> refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
>>>> entire salary into savings.
>>>>
>>>> I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
>>>> Fund, as a 20 year old.
>>>>
>>>>> There are certainly countless people who spend beyond their means. I
>>>>> just finished a conversation with one such neighbor. I'm astonished at
>>>>> what she buys, given her finances (which, BTW, are what I'd call middle
>>>>> class).
>>>>>
>>>>> But there are also countless poor people who indulge in only the tiniest
>>>>> luxuries. I have a friend like that. You might begrudge his tiny
>>>>> luxuries. ("You shouldn't have paid so much for that sandwich! Just eat
>>>>> at home!") But to me he should be allowed to live a bit above starvation
>>>>> level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, a woman I know very well is very intelligent, very well
>>>>> educated, an award winning artist of national repute. During the 1990s
>>>>> she remarked that she was living on less than $10,000 per year. If she
>>>>> chose to, say, buy a theater ticket, I don't think anyone should have
>>>>> complained.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what "portion" of those folks meager incomes are or were
>>>>> put aside, just as I don't know the "portion" you bragged about. I'm
>>>>> just using them as examples that low income people are not necessarily
>>>>> wasting lots of money.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
>>>> your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14.6
>>>> trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
>>>> That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
>>>> Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
>>>> interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
>>>> interest on a credit card :-)
>>>>
>>>> But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
>>>> borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
>>>> $1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
>>>> chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
>>>> I can remember living in.
>>>>
>>>> But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
>>>> savings.
>>>
>>> I certainly agree with the overall philosophy. It matches mine, and my
>>> behavior.
>>>
>>> But ISTM saving may be easy for, say, someone in the military who is
>>> provided with housing and food. But those benefits are very uncommon for
>>> normal workers. (We have friend in the State Department whose housing is
>>> paid for when they are overseas, which is most of the time. Partly
>>> because of that, plus things like hazard pay, they are doing very, very
>>> well financially.)
>> Yes, you are at least partially correct. It is easy when you live in
>> the Barracks and eat in the Mess Hall. The technique was on payday as
>> soon as you were paid you went straight down to the Base Exchange
>> (general store sort of place) and you bought 3 cakes of soap, a tube
>> of toothpaste, one canister of shoe polish and 3 cartons of
>> cigarettes.
>>
>> What ever was left you spent that night "down town" and lived happily
>> for the rest of the month (:-)
>>
>> But I got married. Tain't the same (:-)
>>>
>>> Likewise, I'd expect an engineer for an oil company would get a
>>> reasonably high salary, and have difficulty spending it in many low
>>> income countries. Hard to spend = easy to save.
>> Don't kid yourself. It is just as easy to spend money in a low income
>> country as in the U.S. A friend came in one day sporting a gold Rolex
>> watch and I asked him, "where'd you steal the watch?" and he told me
>> he had bought it from a bloke in a bar who'd been out of work for a
>> couple of months.Paid $200.
>>> enough to know what he made. It was not exorbitant. But he lived in a
>>> student dorm while his family lived in Bangladesh and did absolutely
>>> nothing but work. He returned home every semester break. He talked about
>>> his immense house and his wife's servants. Me, I always lived frugally,
>>> but I couldn't afford servants.
>> It used to be that way in Thailand. You moved into a neighborhood and
>> mentioned to the maid next door that you might be looking for help and
>> next morning when you looked out there'd be a whole line of girls
>> squatting on the sidewalk looking for a job.
>>
>> Today, it is different. "Job as a housemaid?" "Naw, I can get a job
>> down the fish packing plant. Only 8 hours a day".
>> Unemployment in Thailand, before Covid was in the 1% neighborhood and
>> there were an estimated 3 million "guest workers" here.
>>> Short version: Circumstances differ widely. I don't believe the poor are
>>> typically poor because they are blowing huge wads of money.
>
> John, I think the point Frank is trying to make is the poor do not have a lot of money. They work for minimum wage. Earn a subsistence salary at best. So they cannot have a "huge wads of money" to blow. Because they do not have "huge wads of money". Their money supply is minimal. That is one of the often talked about points of poverty. You cannot get ahead if everything you earn is used up just to maintain subsistence. To invest, or get ahead, or even to start a new business with an idea you have, requires extra money from somewhere. If you never ever have extra, then you remain poor.
>
> Now, I am not saying some of the poor don't keep themselves in poverty with their spending habits. Some, many, waste money on such things as cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, eating out, and other wasteful things. But all of these bad things are still done with minimal amounts of money. A few hundred dollars. Not "huge wads of money".
>
> I am not saying a smart, resourceful, poor person cannot get out of poverty by not wasting a few hundred dollars each month. Save a few hundred dollars each month and after a few years you will have a few extra thousand dollars and then be able to invest or start a profitable endeavor. Yeah. But, if you are making well above minimum wage, then you can probably save a few thousand extra each month, and invest it or start a new endeavor after only a few months. Not after a few years. Big difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Perhaps so, perhaps no. I saved half my salary for the 20 years I
>> spent in the Military and sometimes more then half working as a
>> civilian. I worked two jobs for quite a few years... not because I had
>> to but because I wanted to. I'm not bragging, I was doing what I
>> wanted to do, not what I had to do. I used to work weekends in a
>> gunsmith shop and evenings I used to build high accuracy "varmint
>> rifles"... because I enjoyed it.
>>
>> As for the poor, I really don't know. I've only known one really poor
>> chap. The welfare had gotten him some sort of free housing for he and
>> his wife and a clapped old 2nd hand car to get around in and a job at
>> the Gunsmith shop where I was working. I mentioned,something about
>> paying attention and learning a trade and he told me straight out that
>> he didn't "see no need" as he was getting along "just nice". Making
>> minimum salary living in subsidized housing.
>>
>> I've always wondered how many "poor" are just like that.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski  wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>
>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>
>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying
>> the ultra-rich
>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty.
>> And they are
>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have
>> the laws re-written
>> in their favor.
>>
>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over
>> and over until
>> you understand.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
>
> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively, and set your
> thoughts into action regardless of the effect on her husband's portfolio.

I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't seem to take
donations from merchants of carnage.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>
>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying the ultra-rich
>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty. And they are
>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have the laws re-written
>> in their favor.
>>
>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over and over until
>> you understand.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a democracy
> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one assumes,
> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will be changed.

How naive!

The American legislative processes have been systematically corrupted by
those with huge amounts of money to spend. To treat the most currently
relevant example: A majority of Americans consistently says more gun
control is needed. Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my
state) actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.

Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people? Hmm. Let's see
who gets money from the NRA:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082

That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are blatantly
open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy campaign "donations," gun
manufacturers lobby for easier gun sales; the super-wealthy lobby for
tax breaks for the super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for
protection from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And Republicans
appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 12:40 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:05:19 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:03:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, compared to most European democracies, the U.S. has more wealth
>>>> and income disparity, more crime, far more murders, incredibly more gun
>>>> deaths, more poverty, far worse health care, worse education, more
>>>> citizen debt, longer work weeks, fewer vacation days, far more
>>>> imprisonment, less general contentment, etc. All democracies are NOT
>>>> equal, and I see little evidence that the U.S. system is best of all.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but Frank, when I pointed out that the U.S. had more crime and
>>> thus likely a more lawless population then Canada you leaped to the
>>> defense of the U.S.
>>
>> I did not. You're acting like Tom, arguing against what you wish I'd said. Instead, try
>> giving an accurate quote and/or link to my actual words.
>>
> Well, I don't keep copies of old posts but I do distinctly remember
> that when I pointed out that Canada had lower rates of Murders, Rapes
> and (I think) Assaults you did in fact leap into the fray with a
> series of excuses as to why they lower then the U.S.

As we have to repeatedly tell Tom: The internet keeps copies of old
posts. And you're recall of my points is decidedly faulty, as those old
posts would show.

> So, o.k. we'll say that you did not make any specific and detailed
> excuses but you certainly did intimate them.

Give specifics, if you really want to rehash those discussions. I can't
trust your memory.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.

The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.

Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082

They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're scammed
by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.

There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/

Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
mansion, right?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 4:36 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 21:48:40 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On the Gini Index, Thailand has a 35.0 score. USA has 41.5. So the income equity is much better in Thailand than the USA. So your better numbers for Thailand over the USA prove that less income disparity results in better life.
>> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
>
> Yes, I looked at that and then I looked at GINI and yes the numbers
> seem to show some sort of difference, But is it real?

You're reminding me of a different poster here, one who claims almost
none of the millions of COVID deaths are real. And that the data showing
the stock market rising during Obama's presidency is not real. And that
the satellite data showing large reductions in polar ice mass is not
real. And so on.

Granted, not all data is of equal quality; but the standard for judgment
should be something more than just one's personal impressions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 1:11 AM, John B. wrote:
> ... the point is, if you don't
> make much then you go without. Save your money and pretty soon you
> have got some.
>
> For example, I read that 95% of the U.S. population owns, or has
> access to, an automobile. and the U.S. that is *about* 317,952,110
> people. And the U.S. Census has it that 805,722 ride a bicycle to
> work. So if you are po folk don't buy a car, but a bicycle.

Since you're moving the conversation a little closer to the purported
focus of this discussion group:

I was a bicycle commuter for decades, using my bike at least
occasionally to get to four different jobs over the years. For several
years, I rode almost daily to one of those jobs.

But in America very few people can do that. The main reason is that
America has largely been designed around the automobile. Ever since the
1920s the trend has been to lower and lower densities, requiring longer
and longer travel distances. The average commute time, one way, by car,
is close to half an hour. By bike it would probably be 90 minutes or
more. Few can afford to spend that time, especially if they have
obligations like kids to take care of.

In most of the country, buses are also impractical, again because of low
density sprawl. For a specific example: I was for a time attending
rehearsals for a musical production. Those rehearsals were in a small
town perhaps 7 miles from me. There was absolutely no bus service
running that route back then. There is now, but last I looked it was
only a few times per day. I'd have to literally devote most of a day to
bus travel to and from a 90 minute rehearsal.

This is reality for most Americans. For a poor person, it means that if
they can't afford some sort of car, they can't get a job. That would be
true even if they were a skilled and dedicated cyclist. And of course,
cars are expensive to operate and maintain.

Be wary of simplistic solutions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 10:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
>
> I've bitched about the payroll tax for over fifty years. Join me. But
> that tax will only go up, necessarily, (although never enough to fund
> SS/Medicare).

Increase the _real_ tax in the mega-rich and on the largest, most
profitable corporations. Then compensate by lowering the FIT on less
wealthy individuals.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 4:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 22:32:16 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:40:21 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:05:19 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:03:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, compared to most European democracies, the U.S. has more wealth
>>>>>> and income disparity, more crime, far more murders, incredibly more gun
>>>>>> deaths, more poverty, far worse health care, worse education, more
>>>>>> citizen debt, longer work weeks, fewer vacation days, far more
>>>>>> imprisonment, less general contentment, etc. All democracies are NOT
>>>>>> equal, and I see little evidence that the U.S. system is best of all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but Frank, when I pointed out that the U.S. had more crime and
>>>>> thus likely a more lawless population then Canada you leaped to the
>>>>> defense of the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> I did not. You're acting like Tom, arguing against what you wish I'd said. Instead, try
>>>> giving an accurate quote and/or link to my actual words.
>>>>
>>> Well, I don't keep copies of old posts but I do distinctly remember
>>> that when I pointed out that Canada had lower rates of Murders, Rapes
>>> and (I think) Assaults you did in fact leap into the fray with a
>>> series of excuses as to why they lower then the U.S.
>>>
>>> So, o.k. we'll say that you did not make any specific and detailed
>>> excuses but you certainly did intimate them.
>>
>> Excuses or explanations? I treat those a bit different. Actually a lot different. Maybe Canada has less murder, rape, assault because:
>>
>> Lower rate of poverty. 6.4% Canada 13.1% USA
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
>>
>> Less gun ownership percentage.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
>>
>> Lower Gini Index. Canada 33.3 USA 41.5 So less wealth disparity, difference.
>> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
>>
>> Canada is more homogenous. Less racial differences.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians
>> On the right side of the above link there is a Canadian flag and below it is the racial makeup of Canada. Big difference between the USA.
>>
>> And there are probably a lot of other reasons I cannot think of off the top of my head.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> And as for laying the blame for all of the U.S's ills on income
>>>>> disparity,...
>>>>
>>>> Again, that's not what I've said, especially the "all". However, I do believe income and wealth disparity
>>>> are major sources of problems.
>>> And again, I agree that you didn't enumerate, in great detail, all the
>>> exact causes and effects but you certainly did mention income
>>> disparity over and over and over.
>>>>
>>>>> The murder rate in the U.S. is 6.2/100,000, Thailand 2.6.
>>>>
>>>> I don't dispute that at all. Of course, you have no NRA, do you?
>>> What has the National Rifle Association have to do with it?
>>> Does the NRA endorse illegal use of firearms?
>>
>> Murder is frequently, often, committed by guns. 79% of murders by gun in USA in 2020.
>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
>> Many people believe having more guns available leads to more murders being performed. NRA promotes more guns for everyone. Seems like a logical progression between murder rate and NRA.
>
> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> But more inline with reality, the NRA brags of something like 5.5
>>> million members and, as I pointed out in another post, estimates are
>>> that some 30% own guns in the U.S.
>>> (Pew Research)
>>>
>>> That is what? Maybe 1/3 of 334,686,437? A whole bunch more then the
>>> NRA, anyway.
>>>>> The question then is "Are we doing something right" or "are you doing
>>>>> something wrong"?
>>>>
>>>> Think, John! Those conditions are not mutually exclusive!
>>>>
>>>>> Or right here. Is Tommy the sort that you feel capable of making
>>>>> decisions for you? He apparently is typical of a growing portion of
>>>>> the Public. Witness the furor over "illegal votes" or the Washington
>>>>> riot.
>>>>
>>>> If I were allowed to write the qualifications for voting, Tom would not qualify.
>>>> I'd demand a certain level of intelligence, and a certain connection to reality.
>>>> But admittedly, such standards are very unlikely to be imposed.
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>> Yes, exactly as the guys that started the whole idea did. Owns
>>> property, pays taxes, and has completed military training and
>>> maintains arms. i.e., prepared to defend the city.
>>> Nothing wrong with that.
>>>
>>> In fact I believe I read somewhere that Winston Churchill once said
>>> something about it being foolishness to allow those on the dole to
>>> vote as they would only vote for more dole.
>>>
>>> The New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to
>>> "all inhabitants" who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50
>>> English pounds, and resided in a county for at least one year.
>>> Presumably "all inhabitants" were male.
>>
>> Things change. We even allowed women to vote 102 years ago. 1920. rAnd in your reply John, you forgot a very important part. Presumably "all inhabitants" were WHITE male. Although come to think of it, I do not know how the states handled non slave blacks in the northern states. In some states probably, not all blacks were slaves. Some were free. Could they vote? I presume in the southern states there were no free blacks allowed. All blacks in those states were slaves. But in states that allowed blacks to be free, was that enough to allow them to vote? Or did it take the 15th Amendment in 1870 to allow any black men to vote?
>
> I don't know, but there didn't seem to have been many in the North in
> the colonial days. But the Wikki says that "When the United States
> Constitution was ratified (1789), a small number of free blacks were
> among the voting citizens (male property owners) in some states."
> And that nation wide, as you say, in 1870,
>

NRA has ongoing difficulties[1] such than newer
organizations such as GOA have raided the membership. Not a
bad thing. Small NRA numbers are logical at this time.

[1] internal, external and political.

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

On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>
>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>> were required
>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>> experience with
>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>> letter of the
>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>
>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>> in their favor.
>>>
>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>> read it over and over until
>>> you understand.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>
>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
>>
>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
>> on her husband's portfolio.
>
> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
>
> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>
>
>
>
>

And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm crime?

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

On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>
>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>> were required
>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>> experience with
>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>> letter of the
>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>
>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>> in their favor.
>>>
>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>> read it over and over until
>>> you understand.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>
>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
>>
>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
>> on her husband's portfolio.
>
> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
>
> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>
>
>
>
>

And I'm not trying to demonize her (in this instance). You
would have gotten just as far with your neighbor the
bartender Mr Boehner. Which is nowhere.

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

On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>
>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>> were required
>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>> experience with
>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>> letter of the
>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>
>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>> in their favor.
>>>
>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>> read it over and over until
>>> you understand.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>> democracy
>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>> assumes,
>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>> be changed.
>
> How naive!
>
> The American legislative processes have been systematically
> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>
> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>
>
> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>

Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you
decry and moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968,
1986 extensions.

Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in
the same way that people with outstanding warrants get new
driver's licenses and new charge cards. That's like
advocating 'mental health services'; money is spent, nothing
happens after that.

And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have
less cash to throw around with today's membership (newer
firearms organizations are growing rapidly. NRA is not).

You can respect them for their consistent single-issue
advocacy, including arming black Americans when it was
desperately necessary, alone among national organizations
and continuing down to today, for their safety and
marksmanship programs etc. Or not. But they don't
prevaricate. They do one thing, promote individual second
amendment rights, and only that.

[1]Not 100% bans. There are tax stamp and license provisions
for automatics and explosives but for ~90years taxed items
and licensed owners are virtually unknown in crime. If there
was ever a case I don't know it.

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

On 5/28/2022 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>> while some
>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>> paltry 4% of
>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>
>
> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>
> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
> can usually stop most legislation to which it strongly
> objects. U.S. Senate rules are more than usually restrictive
> that way. And Republicans in the Senate routinely stop any
> chance of enhanced gun control.
>
> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>
>
> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding
> the relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to
> NRA: Even a majority of _those_ want more restrictions on
> guns. But they're scammed by the NRA's crooked top dogs who
> (for example) absolutely convinced them that Obama was going
> to take all their guns away.
>
> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine
> working, and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>
>
> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've
> got a big mansion, right?
>
>

How would you feel about First Amendment prior restraint?

First, secure a license to speak- fill out forms, go to a
government office, wait to be approved, carry a speaking
card with you. Then when you actually wish to speak you'll
need a permit for a specific time/subject/venue. 'reasonable
restrictions' as it were.

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

On 5/28/2022 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>> while some
>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>> paltry 4% of
>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>
>
> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>
> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
> can usually stop most legislation to which it strongly
> objects. U.S. Senate rules are more than usually restrictive
> that way. And Republicans in the Senate routinely stop any
> chance of enhanced gun control.
>
> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>
>
> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding
> the relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to
> NRA: Even a majority of _those_ want more restrictions on
> guns. But they're scammed by the NRA's crooked top dogs who
> (for example) absolutely convinced them that Obama was going
> to take all their guns away.
>
> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine
> working, and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>
>
> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've
> got a big mansion, right?
>
>
To scale that-

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-hospital-assn/lobbying?id=D000000116

and those guys are not even 'big' players.

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

On 5/28/2022 12:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>>> were required
>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>> experience with
>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>>> letter of the
>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>
>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>> in their favor.
>>>>
>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>>> read it over and over until
>>>> you understand.
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>
>>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
>>>
>>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
>>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
>>> on her husband's portfolio.
>>
>> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
>> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
>>
>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>
> And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
> Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm crime?

Please don't pretend there are no NRA members committing gun crimes.

But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly combat-optimized
weaponry support each other heavily and mutually. Our nation's obscene
mass shootings and gun death numbers are the direct result.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:48:09 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >>>>>
> >>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
> >>>> were required
> >>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
> >>>> experience with
> >>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
> >>>> letter of the
> >>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >>>
> >>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
> >>> not saying the ultra-rich
> >>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
> >>> grossly faulty. And they are
> >>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
> >>> paying to have the laws re-written
> >>> in their favor.
> >>>
> >>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
> >>> read it over and over until
> >>> you understand.
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>
> >>
> >> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
> >>
> >> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
> >> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
> >> on her husband's portfolio.
> >
> > I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
> > seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
> >
> > https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
> Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm crime?

When has Frank EVER had anything toi back up what he says? He gives opinions as if they were facts and often will quote the Slime Stream Media lies that are factually incorrect as proof that he can rely upon.