Frank

On Sat, 01 May 2021 06:44:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:37:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 18:13:59 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:59:41 PM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

I had the idea that you were about the same age as I was and went
through the deprivation of the war years.
Sorry to interrupt, but as I understand it, you were born in Oct
1944.
Please correct me if this is wrong. When WWII ended in Sept 1945,
you were at best 1 year old. I'm impressed that you can recall the
deprivation of the US war years, 1941 to 1945, at that age.
And the almost instant improvement in life when Eisenhower reduced
the highest tax rates.
That's possible. Dwight D. Eisenhower was president from Jan 20,
1953 to Jan 20, 1961. In 1953, would have been 8 years old. I'm
equally impressed that you can accurately recall economic
improvements when you were 8 to 16 years old. Personally, recalling
most things before I was about 17 years old is mostly a muddle.

You've made it very clear that everything in your life is a muddle.
Broken family was it? Low IQ? Even with my memory problems I can
remember everything in grade school, Jr. High and High School. 8 years
old was more than old enough to tend to the chickens and the garden. I
also worked for Farmer Potts who had a field around the corner and
hand out with my friends walking 4 or 5 miles to their houses. Unlike
you, I was never protected. And there was never any need to be either
because everyone knew my father from his fighting days. Neither he nor
my older brother were allowed to be drafted or to volunteer because
they worked for the railroad and that was a necessary labor. Why don't
you tell us whatever the hell you can remember? 17 is muddled?
Remember I volunteered for Vietnam at that age. You sure must be mind
addled.
Well quite obviously you don't know what you are talking about as
people who worked in certain jobs weren't forbidden to volunteer for
the Service during WW II, they were given a "deferment" which excluded
them from the draft but they were still free to volunteer if they
wished. How do I know? I know because my uncle was in just that
situation, he had a deferment but volunteered for the Navy and served
in both North Africa and the Pacific.

As for you volunteering for Vietnam when you were 17 years old that's
even more fantasy. Had you volunteered you would have served in Vietnam
and had you served in Vietnam you would be dancing around, waving your
arms and shouting "I'm a hero!, I'm a hero!".
--
Cheers,

John B.
When you don't know what you're talking about why don't you just shut
up? People with children to support could get deferments but there were
several "critical" employments from which you could not be drafted nor
even volunteer.

Which were? Obviously they didn't apply to you.

Exactly what goes through your head that you believe
that aircraft designers could be turned into battle fodder instead of
winning the war in the positions they were at.

Exactly what planes were designed to win "the war"?

The Pew Research center
released a study that said that 54% of all liberal white women were
mentally unstable and obviously you fit into that category.
Is that your excuse for your failed marriage?

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:11:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for someone
else's medical expenses. After 66, I became a recipient and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might benefit me.
I've never complained about paying taxes - except, perhaps, the portion
that go toward maintaining a military that's larger than the next 20
nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or whatever - it
astounds me that there are people who love the current U.S. system. It
has often exorbitant hospital costs that are usually hidden from the
consumer until too late, it de-emphasizes preventive care, uses
expensive emergency rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured,
it features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and multitudes of
lawyers on each side to argue over what they mean, it prevents real
bidding or negotiation on many medicines and procedures, it obscenely
enriches its stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?

Frank, the medical care in the US is the best in the world because of these terrible vices you think it has. Please - go to Thailand where John tells you that they have heavenly socialized medicine and get treated for cancer. Please.

On Sat, 01 May 2021 07:45:09 -0500, AMuzi scribed:

On 4/30/2021 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for someone
else's medical expenses. After 66, I became a recipient and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might benefit me.

I've never complained about paying taxes - except, perhaps, the portion
that go toward maintaining a military that's larger than the next 20
nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or whatever - it
astounds me that there are people who love the current U.S. system. It
has often exorbitant hospital costs that are usually hidden from the
consumer until too late, it de-emphasizes preventive care, uses
expensive emergency rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured,
it features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and multitudes of
lawyers on each side to argue over what they mean, it prevents real
bidding or negotiation on many medicines and procedures, it obscenely
enriches its stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?

Dear Frank-

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/defense.jpg

Everyone decries that the Pentagon wastes half it budget. Few agree with
me that every other Department wastes all of theirs.

So clearly Frank wins that argument.
Screaming Hobgolblins and 'drums of war' are a clear sign.

On 5/1/2021 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/30/2021 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021

wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a
fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for
someone
else's medical expenses.Â* After 66, I became a recipient
and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might
benefit me.

I've never complained about paying taxes - except, perhaps,
the portion that go toward maintaining a military that's
larger than the next 20 nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or whatever
- it astounds me that there are people who love the current
U.S. system. It has often exorbitant hospital costs that are
usually hidden from the consumer until too late, it
de-emphasizes preventive care, uses expensive emergency
rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured, it
features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and
multitudes of lawyers on each side to argue over what they
mean, it prevents real bidding or negotiation on many
medicines and procedures, it obscenely enriches its
stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?



Dear Frank-

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/defense.jpg

Everyone decries that the Pentagon wastes half it budget. Few agree with
me that every other Department wastes all of theirs.

Yep. Our military has prevented Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and a
gaggle of Middle Eastern states from invading us. Well, except for that
incident in 2001...

OTOH, the militaries of Britain, France, Switzerland, Japan, Norway,
Russia, China, North Korea and more have all been similarly successful
while spending SO much less.

See

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tary-spending/


or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

Interesting math exercise: Start adding expenditures from #2 on down.
See how many nations you have to total to match the U.S. expenditure.

As with medicine, it seems others get as good or better results with FAR
less expense.

Didn't Eisenhower have something to say about that?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/1/2021 10:04 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:11:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for someone
else's medical expenses. After 66, I became a recipient and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might benefit me.
I've never complained about paying taxes - except, perhaps, the portion
that go toward maintaining a military that's larger than the next 20
nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or whatever - it
astounds me that there are people who love the current U.S. system. It
has often exorbitant hospital costs that are usually hidden from the
consumer until too late, it de-emphasizes preventive care, uses
expensive emergency rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured,
it features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and multitudes of
lawyers on each side to argue over what they mean, it prevents real
bidding or negotiation on many medicines and procedures, it obscenely
enriches its stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?

Frank, the medical care in the US is the best in the world ...

Bull****.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN1GP2YN

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...rspective-2019


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/30/2021 8:48 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

snip

Nope. Eisenhower raised the rate on the highest tax bracket to 92%.
At the time, there were very few people with such a high income, so
there was little impact on tax revenue.

Correct. Eisenhower was the last fiscally conservative, socially liberal
Republican president. The last of the old-school Republicans.

It's been downhill since then for the Republican party, Nixon, Reagan,
Bush 1, Bush 2, Trump. Actually Bush 1 was not too bad, but he had the
gall to raise taxes to pay for Reagan's spending spree and that cost him
his re-election.

If you look at actual data you can see how much better the country has
fared under Democratic presidents, repeating:

From 1945 through 2020Q2, GDP grew 4.1% on average under Democrats,
versus 2.5% under Republicans, a difference of 1.6 percentage points.

Going back to Eisenhower, the stock market has risen an average of 11%
per year under Democratic presidents versus 6.5% for Republicans.

The unemployment rate has fallen on average under Democratic presidents,
while it has risen on average under Republican presidents.

Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower, on
average, for Democratic presidents.

Ten of the 11 U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under
Republican presidents.

It's clear that under Democratic administrations GDP growth is greater,
equity markets fare better, unemployment is lower, budget deficits are
lower, and recessions are less likely. The reasons are pretty obvious.
Democratic presidents are much less protectionist, they are more focused
on economic expansion, they are less likely to engage in wasteful
spending, and they are less likely to get us involved in wars.

People vote for Republicans for all sorts of reasons, but economic
health and performance are not included in those reasons.

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 7:39:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/1/2021 10:04 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:11:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/30/2021 9:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 01:05:12 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:37:29 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:
Socialized Medicine ALWAYS fails.

Wrong

Prior to attaining the age of 65 or 66 years[1], I was a fairly
typical taxpayer, routinely complaining about paying for someone
else's medical expenses. After 66, I became a recipient and therefore
a staunch supporter of socialized everything that might benefit me.
I've never complained about paying taxes - except, perhaps, the portion
that go toward maintaining a military that's larger than the next 20
nations combined.

Regarding single payer or universal health care or whatever - it
astounds me that there are people who love the current U.S. system. It
has often exorbitant hospital costs that are usually hidden from the
consumer until too late, it de-emphasizes preventive care, uses
expensive emergency rooms to treat minor problems among the uninsured,
it features arcane and convoluted insurance contracts and multitudes of
lawyers on each side to argue over what they mean, it prevents real
bidding or negotiation on many medicines and procedures, it obscenely
enriches its stockholders and CEOs, and it delivers results that are
generally FAR worse than competing systems.

What's not to hate?

Frank, the medical care in the US is the best in the world ...

Bull****.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN1GP2YN

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...rspective-2019

Well then go to Canada and get their wonderful socialized medicine. Go to England and get their wonderful socialized medicine. The world is beconking and I'm sure that yo can get much better care elsewhere do what are you waiting for?

On Sat, 1 May 2021 06:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 8:49:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
So, what do I want? Easy. I would like you to stop lying. Maybe
some URL and references backing up your assertions. Nothing more (for
now).

Is there some reason that you couldn't read the reference I gave

Of course there are reasons. You failed to include a URL so that I
don't have to read all 15 messages you posted yesterday (4/30/2021). I
don't read everything you post and have no intention of digging for
something you have at your fingertips. Besides your general lack of
credibility, that's the reason I would like you to include references
and URL's.

to you wannabe lover John?

Sorry, but he's not my type. If you're going to play matchmaker, I
can send you a list of minimal requirements necessary to seduce me.

That showed that Franklin Roosevelt had a top tax rate of 94% -
probably more since there were no writeoffs of any sort then.

Ummm... were discussing Eisenhower. FDR was fighting a war while
Eisenhower was not. FDR did his best to finance the war by
confiscating personal income over $20,000. Congress thought
otherwise. I don't have time right now to lookup the number of
taxpayers that would have been affected by a 91% tax rate in 1943 but
it was fairly small. You'll probably find that various articles on
the topic failed to mention the number of affected tax payers.

"When Income Was Taxed at 94%: How FDR Tackled Debt and Reckless
Republicans"
https://flaglerlive.com/26685/gc-fdr-and-taxes/
Anyway, if you're having problems distinguishing between Eisenhower
and FDR, compare spellings and dates.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 01 May 2021 07:45:09 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Dear Frank-

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...st/defense.jpg

Everyone decries that the Pentagon wastes half it budget.
Few agree with me that every other Department wastes all of
theirs.

I agree, but you're being generous. A government agency allegedly
generates a service or profit. In theory, no government agency is
suppose to do either when the original intent of government was to
provide services that private industry was unable to provide, such as
national defense. In other words, government was not intended to be
efficient or compete with private industry. Should a government
agency accidentally make a profit, such as the FCC selling bandwidth
for billions of dollars, it is necessary for that agency to balance
this profit by equal and opposite losses. This is done by furiously
spending any finds left in the budget at the end of the year in the
hope that congress does not notice and decrease the agencies funding.
Therefore, under ideal circumstances, government agencies are expected
to consume or otherwise waste everything they are allocated. If
something useful comes from this process, it is typically small,
trivial, unplanned and accidental.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:04:59 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Frank, the medical care in the US is the best in the world because of these terrible vices you think it has. Please - go to Thailand where John tells you that they have heavenly socialized medicine and get treated for cancer. Please.

Medicine in Thailand seems to attract a fair number of medical
tourists who apparently fail to appreciate the high cost of the US
medical machine.

"The new era of medical tourism"
https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/social-and-lifestyle/1990983/the-new-era-of-medical-tourism
"The Thai Ministry of Commerce estimated that, in 2006, 1.2 million
medical tourists accessed health services in Thailand and provided an
estimated revenue of approximately US$ 1.1 billion..."

For reference, the US receives about 1 million medical tourists per
year from foreign countries.

Incidentally, I almost went to Mexico in 2009 for uninsured prostate
surgery:
https://www.angeleshealth.com
I hired a medical tourism advisor, who incidentally was India, to
advise me. The price was right at about 20% of retail, until I added
up the hidden costs itemized by my advisor. Since the local hospital
offered a 50% discount if I paid cash within 1 month of release, I
decided it was safer and not that much more expensive to have the work
done locally.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558