Frank, Jay's and SMS's greatest dreams appear to have come true.

On 11/4/2020 10:20 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 7:42:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 19:10:42 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:03:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

I've sworn to uphold the Constitution a lot of times, and
being that I'm not the state, upholding the Constitution
is pretty light duty.
-- Jay Beattie.

I suspect that our current fearless leader may have misunderstood and
instead swore to "holdup" the constitution as in "This is a holdup".

Notice how some of the discussion just prior to the election was about
when the government will be sending us our 2nd $1,200 stimulus check
entitlement? I suspect that there were some voters who deduced that
voting for Trump was a prerequisite for delivering their free lunch.
Well, I don't believe there is anything in the constitution that
specifically forbids purchasing votes :-)

I'm telling you John, my old best friend who I grew up with worked in the Pentagon as a Japanese language translator and social conduct consultant as a Marine Chief Master Sargent. The last time I heard from him he said that he and his wife were fleeing to Okinawa because the US was about to be turned inside out. I really suggest that you watch your money because if Biden ends up winning you can bet your bottom dollar that your military retirement will soon disappear.



We're a large country with one of everything. Every year a
few thousand USAians renounce their citizenship (the fee for
which is some $4000) including this year Tina Turner who is
now a Swiss. These are unusual outlier decisions with no
greater meaning IMHO.

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

On 11/5/2020 2:00 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 21:33:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/4/2020 9:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:03:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

I've sworn to uphold the Constitution a lot of times, and
being that I'm not the state, upholding the Constitution
is pretty light duty.
-- Jay Beattie.

I suspect that our current fearless leader may have misunderstood and
instead swore to "holdup" the constitution as in "This is a holdup".

Notice how some of the discussion just prior to the election was about
when the government will be sending us our 2nd $1,200 stimulus check
entitlement? I suspect that there were some voters who deduced that
voting for Trump was a prerequisite for delivering their free lunch.

This President has been ultra-hyper-legal, invoking the
Constitution and statutes meticulously (likely with advice
of counsel), not disregarding clear Constitutional limits
with some flippant pap such as "I have a pen and a phone" or
whatever.

I beg to differ. He was nearly impeached for "abuse of power" and
"obstruction of congress". The voting was along party lines and do
not really reflect innocence or guilt. Administration sponsored
changes in tax laws have mostly resulted in tax cuts for the rich:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tax+breaks+going+to+the+rich
Constantly lying, fabricating false accusations, trashing our
international reputation, making a fool of himself, and slandering
those he finds disagreeable are not inscribed in the constitution and
therefore perfectly acceptable behavior for someone the voting public
has entrusted with operating the country and executing it laws.

On the subject of repeated shameless profligacy, equally
wrought by Mr Trump and Mrs Pelosi with instigation of both
by that evil imp Mnuchin, I'm with you. The spring giveaway
was wrong and further waste of [future] assets would
compound the error. A pox on all their houses for that.

The real crime is he's likely to do it again at least once if
re-elected. The free lunch for those making less than $75,000 per
year will be $1,200 per person:
330 million people * $1,200 = $40 billion
That's small change compared to the proposed $2 trillion dollar
package, most of which will likely go to high priced and dubious
economic recovery programs operated by Trump's friends and
contributors.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are no better. When first asked what he
planned to do, the best Biden could offer was to raise everyone's
taxes. That was almost immediately amended to raising the taxes on
the rich. Either way, he's looking around for a way to fund a
Democratic Party flavor of the Trump giveaway program. Also, don't
assume that such a tax increase will be temporary.

We lose with either party.




+1
On this we can agree.

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

On 11/5/2020 2:51 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:30 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 21:33:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/4/2020 9:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:03:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

I've sworn to uphold the Constitution a lot of times, and
being that I'm not the state, upholding the Constitution
is pretty light duty.
-- Jay Beattie.

I suspect that our current fearless leader may have misunderstood and
instead swore to "holdup" the constitution as in "This is a holdup".

Notice how some of the discussion just prior to the election was about
when the government will be sending us our 2nd $1,200 stimulus check
entitlement? I suspect that there were some voters who deduced that
voting for Trump was a prerequisite for delivering their free lunch.

This President has been ultra-hyper-legal, invoking the
Constitution and statutes meticulously (likely with advice
of counsel), not disregarding clear Constitutional limits
with some flippant pap such as "I have a pen and a phone" or
whatever.

I beg to differ. He was nearly impeached for "abuse of power" and
"obstruction of congress". The voting was along party lines and do
not really reflect innocence or guilt. Administration sponsored
changes in tax laws have mostly resulted in tax cuts for the rich:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tax+breaks+going+to+the+rich
Constantly lying, fabricating false accusations, trashing our
international reputation, making a fool of himself, and slandering
those he finds disagreeable are not inscribed in the constitution and
therefore perfectly acceptable behavior for someone the voting public
has entrusted with operating the country and executing it laws.

On the subject of repeated shameless profligacy, equally
wrought by Mr Trump and Mrs Pelosi with instigation of both
by that evil imp Mnuchin, I'm with you. The spring giveaway
was wrong and further waste of [future] assets would
compound the error. A pox on all their houses for that.

The real crime is he's likely to do it again at least once if
re-elected. The free lunch for those making less than $75,000 per
year will be $1,200 per person:
330 million people * $1,200 = $40 billion
That's small change compared to the proposed $2 trillion dollar
package, most of which will likely go to high priced and dubious
economic recovery programs operated by Trump's friends and
contributors.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are no better. When first asked what he
planned to do, the best Biden could offer was to raise everyone's
taxes. That was almost immediately amended to raising the taxes on
the rich. Either way, he's looking around for a way to fund a
Democratic Party flavor of the Trump giveaway program. Also, don't
assume that such a tax increase will be temporary.

We lose with either party.

Not to argue Red or Blue, but isn't that what any candidate must do to
be elected? And in reality,, isn't that just what candidates do? "Vote
for me and I'll ensure the shipyard doesn't close!". Vote for me and
I'll tax the other guy!". "Vote for me and I'll raise farm subsidies!"

I read somewhere that Biden talked about a minimum pay rate of
$15/hour. Some time ago I did a survey of state minimum salaries and
the average for the 50 states amounted to something like $9.00/hour.
If someone told me that I'd get a raise of 66% if he is elected guess
who I'd vote for?


I'm sure some people see it that way ($9 is poverty in SF
County but a decent life in much of America).

But facts are stubborn things. The real minimum wage is
always zero and the higher the regulatory burdens the more
people discover that unpleasant reality, good and hard.

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

On 11/4/2020 5:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:22:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Californians ran mostly to Nevada to get away from excessive
taxation and regulation ...

Ummm... Texas seems to be the number one destination.
https://www.kaleorealestate.com/2020/08/25/leaving-california-why-when-and-where-to/
Nevada is 4th in line. At the rate of about 250,000 residents/year
reduction in population, California will be depopulated in:
40 million / 0.25 million = 160 years


Add in the 450,000+ per year birth rate and it will take even longer to
empty out California. :-)

California's population keeps increasing. It's not just the birthrate.
It's younger, highly-educated residents moving in, both from other
states and immigrants, exceeding the number that are moving out.

However it's too soon to see the long-term effects on population,
housing, commercial office, and transportation that Covid-19 has
precipitated. The short term effect in the San Francisco Bay Area has
been plummeting rents, a huge glut of rental housing, terrified
commercial property owners, especially of buildings under construction,
and attempts by the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose to try to stop
the increase in remote-working.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. If retirees seek a less expensive,
less hectic lifestyle, when they cash out they free up the desirable
houses for young families.

Prop 19, which just passed, will reduce the number of retirees that
leave California because now they can move to anywhere in the state and
take their Prop 13 home valuation with them. If they live in a $2
million house that is assessed at $300,000, they can buy a $500,000 in a
less expensive county and take that $300,000 assessment with them. The
county that they leave makes out like a bandit because their old house
is reassessed at market value, which can mean 6-10x the property tax
revenue. The county that they go to loses out because they'll be paying
artificially low property tax on their new home, but the less expensive
counties don't have a shortage of single family homes so it's not like
the seniors are really displacing anyone.

On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 6:17:51 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 11/4/2020 5:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:22:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Californians ran mostly to Nevada to get away from excessive
taxation and regulation ...

Ummm... Texas seems to be the number one destination.
https://www.kaleorealestate.com/2020/08/25/leaving-california-why-when-and-where-to/
Nevada is 4th in line. At the rate of about 250,000 residents/year
reduction in population, California will be depopulated in:
40 million / 0.25 million = 160 years


Add in the 450,000+ per year birth rate and it will take even longer to
empty out California. :-)

California's population keeps increasing. It's not just the birthrate.
It's younger, highly-educated residents moving in, both from other
states and immigrants, exceeding the number that are moving out.

However it's too soon to see the long-term effects on population,
housing, commercial office, and transportation that Covid-19 has
precipitated. The short term effect in the San Francisco Bay Area has
been plummeting rents, a huge glut of rental housing, terrified
commercial property owners, especially of buildings under construction,
and attempts by the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose to try to stop
the increase in remote-working.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. If retirees seek a less expensive,
less hectic lifestyle, when they cash out they free up the desirable
houses for young families.

Prop 19, which just passed, will reduce the number of retirees that
leave California because now they can move to anywhere in the state and
take their Prop 13 home valuation with them. If they live in a $2
million house that is assessed at $300,000, they can buy a $500,000 in a
less expensive county and take that $300,000 assessment with them. The
county that they leave makes out like a bandit because their old house
is reassessed at market value, which can mean 6-10x the property tax
revenue. The county that they go to loses out because they'll be paying
artificially low property tax on their new home, but the less expensive
counties don't have a shortage of single family homes so it's not like
the seniors are really displacing anyone.

How is that not discriminatory? And it has to be getting gamed. I would challenge that law if I were a local taxing authority that was budgeting based on market values, and a bunch of "retirees" moved in depressed tax revenues. And retirees from where -- Apple and Intel? These people are not suffering.

How would you feel about paying a boat load of taxes on your house and someone moves in next door, buys a similar house and pays one-quarter your taxes. F*** that! People should be taxed equally. If a person can't meet the tax burden, then give him or her a deferrals and take it out of the sale of the house. Who cares if the kids don't make a few more thousand at probate time. If market values are through the roof and applying standard rates balloons tax revenues, then reduce the rate for everyone. We have a hobbled tax system around here where similar houses just have different locked-in assessments which means people shop for tax bills. It really skews the market and needs to be reformed.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 12:00:39 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 21:33:52 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/4/2020 9:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:03:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

I've sworn to uphold the Constitution a lot of times, and
being that I'm not the state, upholding the Constitution
is pretty light duty.
-- Jay Beattie.

I suspect that our current fearless leader may have misunderstood and
instead swore to "holdup" the constitution as in "This is a holdup".

Notice how some of the discussion just prior to the election was about
when the government will be sending us our 2nd $1,200 stimulus check
entitlement? I suspect that there were some voters who deduced that
voting for Trump was a prerequisite for delivering their free lunch.

This President has been ultra-hyper-legal, invoking the
Constitution and statutes meticulously (likely with advice
of counsel), not disregarding clear Constitutional limits
with some flippant pap such as "I have a pen and a phone" or
whatever.
I beg to differ. He was nearly impeached for "abuse of power" and
"obstruction of congress". The voting was along party lines and do
not really reflect innocence or guilt. Administration sponsored
changes in tax laws have mostly resulted in tax cuts for the rich:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tax+breaks+going+to+the+rich
Constantly lying, fabricating false accusations, trashing our
international reputation, making a fool of himself, and slandering
those he finds disagreeable are not inscribed in the constitution and
therefore perfectly acceptable behavior for someone the voting public
has entrusted with operating the country and executing it laws.
On the subject of repeated shameless profligacy, equally
wrought by Mr Trump and Mrs Pelosi with instigation of both
by that evil imp Mnuchin, I'm with you. The spring giveaway
was wrong and further waste of [future] assets would
compound the error. A pox on all their houses for that.
The real crime is he's likely to do it again at least once if
re-elected. The free lunch for those making less than $75,000 per
year will be $1,200 per person:
330 million people * $1,200 = $40 billion
That's small change compared to the proposed $2 trillion dollar
package, most of which will likely go to high priced and dubious
economic recovery programs operated by Trump's friends and
contributors.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are no better. When first asked what he
planned to do, the best Biden could offer was to raise everyone's
taxes. That was almost immediately amended to raising the taxes on
the rich. Either way, he's looking around for a way to fund a
Democratic Party flavor of the Trump giveaway program. Also, don't
assume that such a tax increase will be temporary.

We lose with either party.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff, did you think that Biden was kidding when her mouthed the words of his party that your 2nd amendment rights would be taken away from you? That he would institute the New Green Deal? That he would end fracking? That he would end drilling for oil? The effects of this would be to cause 100 times more ecological damage than you seem to think that it would end. Wind farms are EXTREMELY destructive. Aside from killing Raptors by the hundreds, they absolutely destroy insectivorous bats allowing large scale insect multiplications. This would END the bounty of the central valley and your food supply. Solar farms require hundreds of acres and only work well at this latitude in the summer for four hours total per day.

Do you have any idea of how many babies died in the 1900's before widespread availability of electricity or coal heat? Sometime go through an old graveyard and see the ages of the children that died and most of them died from the seasonal flu and the inability to keep them warm when they were sick and feverish.

YOU will no longer have a car to so much as grocery shop. So do not blame what happens to you on anyone but yourself.

Before when I voted they would put the forms through the counting machine right in front of me so that I knew it was counted. This time they all went into a suitcase so that votes they didn't like could be culled out later before they went into the counter. This is the world that you have damned yourself to. This is the world in which the US will be China's military arm becoming the most hated country on this planet and making the words "free enterprise" disgusting to most other countries.

Trump was almost impeached for WHAT??? Obviously you've gotten all of your news from CNN and haven't actually looked ANYTHING up. That's OK. I'm not going to be around here much longer but your children have been damned by your hand.

On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 7:27:32 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 6:17:51 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 11/4/2020 5:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:22:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Californians ran mostly to Nevada to get away from excessive
taxation and regulation ...

Ummm... Texas seems to be the number one destination.
https://www.kaleorealestate.com/2020/08/25/leaving-california-why-when-and-where-to/
Nevada is 4th in line. At the rate of about 250,000 residents/year
reduction in population, California will be depopulated in:
40 million / 0.25 million = 160 years


Add in the 450,000+ per year birth rate and it will take even longer to
empty out California. :-)

California's population keeps increasing. It's not just the birthrate.
It's younger, highly-educated residents moving in, both from other
states and immigrants, exceeding the number that are moving out.

However it's too soon to see the long-term effects on population,
housing, commercial office, and transportation that Covid-19 has
precipitated. The short term effect in the San Francisco Bay Area has
been plummeting rents, a huge glut of rental housing, terrified
commercial property owners, especially of buildings under construction,
and attempts by the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose to try to stop
the increase in remote-working.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. If retirees seek a less expensive,
less hectic lifestyle, when they cash out they free up the desirable
houses for young families.

Prop 19, which just passed, will reduce the number of retirees that
leave California because now they can move to anywhere in the state and
take their Prop 13 home valuation with them. If they live in a $2
million house that is assessed at $300,000, they can buy a $500,000 in a
less expensive county and take that $300,000 assessment with them. The
county that they leave makes out like a bandit because their old house
is reassessed at market value, which can mean 6-10x the property tax
revenue. The county that they go to loses out because they'll be paying
artificially low property tax on their new home, but the less expensive
counties don't have a shortage of single family homes so it's not like
the seniors are really displacing anyone.
How is that not discriminatory? And it has to be getting gamed. I would challenge that law if I were a local taxing authority that was budgeting based on market values, and a bunch of "retirees" moved in depressed tax revenues. And retirees from where -- Apple and Intel? These people are not suffering.

How would you feel about paying a boat load of taxes on your house and someone moves in next door, buys a similar house and pays one-quarter your taxes. F*** that! People should be taxed equally. If a person can't meet the tax burden, then give him or her a deferrals and take it out of the sale of the house. Who cares if the kids don't make a few more thousand at probate time. If market values are through the roof and applying standard rates balloons tax revenues, then reduce the rate for everyone. We have a hobbled tax system around here where similar houses just have different locked-in assessments which means people shop for tax bills. It really skews the market and needs to be reformed.

I suppose when you're stupid, it doesn't matter. Firstly, only mostly urban areas are left under Proposition 13. It was designed to do just what it does, prevent the county from raising the property taxes out from under retirees and throwing them out of house and home which they DID before Howard Jarvis. IF you sell your house and move to another location and buy a house that is of equal or lesser value, you carried that tax RATE along with you. People that move far out into the country don't matter - the property values in say Red Bluff, are far below those of San Francisco and the county loses no money despite not being under the auspices of Proposition 13. The people that this has helped is people like Nancy Pelosi since Paul bought his billion dollar house before the sharp uptick in property values. So they can move anywhere they like but what does it matter when the taxpayer is paying for it anyway with Paul getting no-bid government contracts in areas that he has no experience or knowledge in?

On 11/4/2020 10:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/4/2020 9:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:03:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

I've sworn to uphold the Constitution a lot of times, and
being that I'm not the state, upholding the Constitution
is pretty light duty.
-- Jay Beattie.

I suspect that our current fearless leader may have misunderstood and
instead swore to "holdup" the constitution as in "This is a holdup".

Notice how some of the discussion just prior to the election was about
when the government will be sending us our 2nd $1,200 stimulus check
entitlement?Â* I suspect that there were some voters who deduced that
voting for Trump was a prerequisite for delivering their free lunch.


This President has been ultra-hyper-legal, invoking the Constitution and
statutes meticulously (likely with advice of counsel), not disregarding
clear Constitutional limits with some flippant pap such as "I have a pen
and a phone" or whatever.

Hyper-legal? There have been other opinions:

https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup

Not to mention:

https://www.axios.com/trump-associat...19d9adcc9.html


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/5/2020 8:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/5/2020 2:51 AM, John B. wrote:

I read somewhere that Biden talked about a minimum pay rate of
$15/hour. Some time ago I did a survey of state minimum salaries and
the average for the 50 states amounted to something like $9.00/hour.
If someone told me that I'd get a raise of 66% if he is elected guess
who I'd vote for?


I'm sure some people see it that way ($9 is poverty in SF County but a
decent life in much of America).

?? Really? Can you give details of where, and what their budget is like?

I have a dear friend who, for quite a few years, lived on about that
amount. She was not married, had no kids, lived in a tiny inner city
apartment in an old building owned by a charitable elderly man, in a
quirky bohemian neighborhood. She had a very old car she almost never
drove because she was able to walk to work, the grocery, etc. She ate no
meat and shopped exclusively at thrift shops. She rode a bicycle I gave
her with a generator I installed because I was afraid she'd save money
by not replacing batteries. She was young enough to be very healthy.
Every bit of furniture in her place was used, and most were gifts from
friends. She had no TV and used a Wi-Fi link from a neighbor's apartment.

She was a little proud of getting by that way and considered it a decent
life. But she was (and remains, in other ways) extremely unusual. And if
she'd had a serious medical problem (which did happen, years later)
she'd have been bankrupt. Fortunately, by then she had married an
engineer and had a much better job herself.

If during her low-income years she instead lived in a small town or a
rural area, I don't think she could have pulled it off.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 6:17:51 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 11/4/2020 5:17 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:22:09 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Californians ran mostly to Nevada to get away from excessive
taxation and regulation ...

Ummm... Texas seems to be the number one destination.
https://www.kaleorealestate.com/2020/08/25/leaving-california-why-when-and-where-to/
Nevada is 4th in line. At the rate of about 250,000 residents/year
reduction in population, California will be depopulated in:
40 million / 0.25 million = 160 years


Add in the 450,000+ per year birth rate and it will take even longer to
empty out California. :-)
California's population keeps increasing. It's not just the birthrate.
It's younger, highly-educated residents moving in, both from other
states and immigrants, exceeding the number that are moving out.

However it's too soon to see the long-term effects on population,
housing, commercial office, and transportation that Covid-19 has
precipitated. The short term effect in the San Francisco Bay Area has
been plummeting rents, a huge glut of rental housing, terrified
commercial property owners, especially of buildings under construction,
and attempts by the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose to try to stop
the increase in remote-working.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. If retirees seek a less expensive,
less hectic lifestyle, when they cash out they free up the desirable
houses for young families.

Prop 19, which just passed, will reduce the number of retirees that
leave California because now they can move to anywhere in the state and
take their Prop 13 home valuation with them. If they live in a $2
million house that is assessed at $300,000, they can buy a $500,000 in a
less expensive county and take that $300,000 assessment with them. The
county that they leave makes out like a bandit because their old house
is reassessed at market value, which can mean 6-10x the property tax
revenue. The county that they go to loses out because they'll be paying
artificially low property tax on their new home, but the less expensive
counties don't have a shortage of single family homes so it's not like
the seniors are really displacing anyone.
I will agree that a larger part of Californians have college degrees but most of then are no educated in the definition of that word. They cannot think a single thought of their own. Also their policies have made California a shrinking state with a total minus population last year alone of 60,000 people. That may not sound like much but it is the actually successfully educated people that are leaving so that the sum loss is to the people that will MAKE the jobs and not those who could work the jobs.

I now have illegal aliens living in the houses on either side and on the far side of them. Across the street there is one of the original families and behind me is an old lady approaching death. On either side of her is illegal aliens. These are all people who received mail out ballots. Did any of them return them? I doubt it but the possibility was there.